FAB Performance Plan NEFAB

FAB Performance Plan

NEFAB

Second Reference Period (2015-2019)

1

FAB Name NEFAB

Version number 1.00

Date of issue 10.6.2014

Date of adoption 24.6.2014

Member State Name, title and signature of representative

Estonia

Mr Eero Pärgmäe –Deputy Secretary General for Transport, Ministry of Economic Affairs and

Communications;

Finland

Ms Minna Kivimäki, Director-General, Ministry of Transport and Communications;

Latvia

Mr Arnis Muiznieks, Director of Aviation Department, Ministry of Transport;

Norway

Mr Øyvind Ek, Director General, Ministry of Transport and Communications.

Additional comments

Signatories

Performance plan details

2

Table of Content

STRUCTURE AND PURPOSE

MAPPING BETWEEN THE TEMPLATE FOR THE FAB PERFORMANCE PLAN AND ANNEX II OF THE PERFORMANCE

REGULATION

SIGNATORIES

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 THE SITUATION

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE MACROECONOMIC SCENARIO INCLUDING OVERALL ASSUMPTIONS

1.3 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

1.4 ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE NETWORK STRATEGY PLAN AT FAB LEVEL AND OTHER GUIDING PRINCIPLES

1.5 LIST OF AIRPORTS FOR RP2

2 INVESTMENT

3 PERFORMANCE TARGETS AT LOCAL LEVEL

3.1 KEY PERFORMANCE AREAS

3.1.(a) Safety

3.1.(a).(i) Safety KPI #1: Level of Effectiveness of Safety Management

3.1.(a).(ii) Safety KPI #2: Application of the severity classification based on the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT)

methodology

3.1.(a).(iii) Safety KPI #3: Just Culture

3.1.(a).(iv) Optional section - Additional Safety KPI(s)

3.1.(b) Environment

3.1.(b).(i) Description of the process to improve route design

3.1.(b).(ii) Environment KPI #1: Horizontal en route flight efficiency (KEA)

3.1.(b).(iii) Optional section - Additional Environment KPI(s)

3.1.(c) Capacity

3.1.(c).(i) Capacity KPI #1: En route ATFM delay per flight

3.1.(c).(ii) Capacity KPI #2: Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per flight

3.1.(c).(iii) Capacity plans

3.1.(c).(iv) Optional section - Additional Capacity KPI(s)

3.1.(d) Cost-efficiency

3.1.(d).(1) Cost efficiency KPI #1: Determined unit cost (DUC) for en route ANS

3.1.(d).(2) Cost efficiency KPI #1: Determined unit cost (DUC) for en route ANS aggregated at FAB level

3.1.(d).(3) Cost efficiency KPI #2: Determined unit cost (DUC) for terminal ANS

3.1.(d).(4) Optional section - Additional Cost-Efficiency KPI(s)

3.2 CONSISTENCY WITH UNION-WIDE TARGETS

3.3 INTERDEPENDENCIES AND TRADE-OFFS

3.4 CONTRIBUTION OF EACH ANSP

4 INCENTIVE SCHEMES

4.1 ENVIRONMENT

4.1 CAPACITY

4.1 COST-EFFICIENCY

5 MILITARY DIMENSION OF THE PLAN

ADDITIONAL (KEY) PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (AND TARGETS)

6 ANALYSIS OF SENSITIVITY AND COMPARISON WITH THE PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE PLAN

6.1 ANALYSIS OF SENSITIVITY

6.2 COMPARISON WITH RP1

3

7 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PERFORMANCE PLAN

8 ANNEXES

ANNEX A. PUBLIC CONSULTATION MATERIAL

ANNEX B. RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION IN LINE WITH THE NSP

ANNEX C. REPORTING TABLES

ANNEX D. ANSPS INVESTMENT PLANS

ANNEX E. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

4

RT ref. AI ref.

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1. Description of the situation (scope of the plan,

list of air navigation service providers covered, etc.).

1.1.

1.2. Description of the macroeconomic scenario for

the reference period including overall assumptions

(traffic forecast, etc.)

1.2.

1.3. Description of the outcome of the stakeholder

consultation in order to prepare the performance

plan and the agreed compromises as well as the

points of disagreement and the reasons for

disagreement.

1.3. Annex A

1.4. Description of the actions taken by air

navigation service providers to implement the

Network Strategy Plan at functional airspace block

level and other guiding principles for the operation

of the functional airspace block in the long term

perspective..

1.4. Annex B

Mapping between the template for the FAB performance plan and Annex II of the

performance Regulation

Structure of ANNEX II of the performance

Regulation

Link with PRB Performance Plan template

Annex C

For cost-effiency

Body of

Performance

Plan

Other annexes

IMPORTANT NOTE FOR SECTION 3.1.(d) – Cost-efficiency: The data and justifications for the cost-efficiency targets at local level are split into two distinct parts of the performance plan, aiming at optimising workload and avoiding duplication of reporting. They comprise: 1. In the body of the performance plan document, the information to be presented at charging zone level (some of the data

requested being pre-filled by the PRB): • The targets with a description of the contribution to, and consistency with, the EU-wide target and/or their contribution

to the performance of the European ATM network;: • The entries and justification requiring data from external sources i.e.

o The traffic forecast used and, if applicable, their justification against STATFOR o The inflation assumptions used and, if applicable, their justification against Eurostat/ IMF.

• The local alert thresholds, if any, and their justification. • A presentation of the consolidation of the targets at FAB level.

2. In Annex C, the information needed at the level of the entities submitted to the performance scheme within the charging zones

(ANSPs including MET providers, National authorities…), as follows: • The data and justifications in the reporting tables and additional information, as per Annexes II, III, VI and VII of the

charging Regulation, at entity level plus a consolidation at charging zone level; • The data and justifications relating to cost-efficiency required at entity level for the purpose of the Performance Plans, as

per Article 11 (3) and Annexes II and IV of the performance Regulation,. A detailed list of the information to be provided in the body of the performance plan and Annex C will be found in Paragraph 3.1(d) below, showing that duplication has been avoided and workload reduced to the minimum required by the performance and charging Regulations. Annex C forms an integral part of the performance plan and will be used to carry out the assessment of the performance plan. The table below shows the correspondence between Annex II of EU Regulation 390/2013 and the Performance Plan template with its Annexes.

5

1.5. List of airports submitted to the performance

scheme in application of Article 1 of the Regulation,

with their average number of IFR air transport

movements.

1.6. List of exempted airports pursuant to Article

1(5) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013

together with their average number of IFR air

transport movements.

2. INVESTMENT 2 Annex D

2.1. Description and justification of the cost, nature

and contribution to achieving the performance

targets of investments in new ATM systems and

major overhauls of existing ATM systems, including

their relevance and coherence with the European

ATM Master Plan, the common projects referred to

in Article 15a of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004, and,

as appropriate, the Network Strategy Plan.

2.2. The description and justification referred to in

point 2.1 shall in particular:

(i) relate the amount of the investments, for which

description and justification is given following point

2.1, to the total amount of investments;

(ii) differentiate between investments in new

systems, overhaul of existing systems and

replacement investments;

(iii) refer each investment in new ATM systems and

major overhaul of existing ATM systems to the

European ATM Master Plan, the common projects

referred to in Article 15a of Regulation (EC) No

550/2004, and, as appropriate, the Network

Strategy Plan;

(iv) detail the synergies achieved at functional

airspace block level or, if appropriate, with other

Member States or functional airspace blocks, in

particular in terms of common infrastructure and

common procurement;

(v) detail the benefits expected from these

investments in terms of performance across the

four key performance areas, allocating them

between the en route and terminal/airport phases

of flight, and the date as from which benefits are

expected;

(vi) provide information on the decision-making

process underpinning the investment, such as the

existence of a documented cost-benefit analysis,

the holding of user consultation, its results and any

dissenting views expressed.

3. PERFORMANCE TARGETS AT LOCAL LEVEL 3

3.1. Performance targets in each key performance

area, set by reference to each key performance

indicator as set out in Annex I, Section 2, for the

entire reference period, with annual values to be

used for monitoring and incentive purposes:

3,1

(a) Safety 3.1.(a)

1.5.

6

(i) level of effectiveness of safety management:

local targets for each year of the reference period;

3.1.(a).(i)

(ii) application of the severity classification based on

the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology: local

targets for each year of the reference period

(percentage);

3.1.(a). (ii)

(iii) just culture: local targets for the last year of the

reference period.

3.1.(a). (iii)

3.1.(a). (iv) -

Optional section -

Additional Safety

KPI(s)

(b) Environment 3.1.(b)

(i) description of the process to improve route

design;

(ii) average horizontal en route flight efficiency of

the actual trajectory.

3.1.(b).(iii) -

Optional section -

Additional

Environment KPI(s)

(c) Capacity 3.1.(c)

(i) minutes of average en route ATFM delay per

flight;

3.1.(c).(i)

(ii) minutes of average terminal ATFM arrival delay

per flight;

3.1.(c).(ii)

(iii) the capacity plan established by the air

navigation service provider(s).

3.1.(c).(iii)

3.1.(c).(iv) -

Optional section -

Additional Capacity

KPI(s)

(d) Cost-efficiency 3.1.(d)

(i) determined costs for en route and terminal air

navigation services set in accordance with the

provisions of Article 15(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation

(EC) No 550/2004 and in application of the

provisions of Implementing Regulation (EU) No

391/2013 for each year of the reference period;

3.1.(d).1.A

3.1.(d).2.A

3.1.(d).1.A

3.1.(d).2.A

3.1.(d).1.C

3.1.(d).2.C

3.1.(d).1.A

3.1.(d).2.A

(iv) description and justification of the return on

equity of the air navigation service providers

concerned, as well as on the gearing ratio and on

the level/composition of the asset base used to

calculate the cost of capital comprised in the

determined costs;

RT 1 (3.1-3.4, 3.6) AI 1 e)

(v) description and explanation of the carry-overs

from the years preceding the reference period;

RT 1 (3.1-3.4, 3.6) AI 3 c), d), e)

(vi) description of economic assumptions, including: 3.1.(d).1.B RT 1 (5.1-5.2)

(ii) en route and terminal service units forecast for

each year of the reference period;

(iii) as a result, the determined unit costs for the

reference period;

RT 1 (5.4)

RT 1 (5.5)

3.1.(b).(i) & (ii)

7

— inflation assumptions used in the plan as

compared to an international source such as the

IMF (International Monetary Fund) Consumer Price

Index (CPI) for the forecasts and Eurostat

Harmonised Index of Consumer Price for the

actuals. Justification of any deviation from these

sources,

3.1.(d).2.B

— assumptions underlying the calculation of

pension costs comprised in the determined costs,

including a description on the relevant national

pension regulations and pension accounting

regulations in place and on which the assumptions

are based, as well as information whether changes

of these regulations are anticipated,

AI 4 b)

— interest rate assumptions for loans financing the

provision of air navigation services, including

relevant information on loans (amounts, duration,

etc.) and explanation for the (weighted) average

interest on debt used to calculate the cost of capital

pre tax rate and the cost of capital comprised in the

determined costs,

RT 1 (3.7) AI 4 c)

— adjustments beyond the provisions of the

International Accounting Standards;

AI 1 Item c)

(vii) if applicable, description in respect to the

previous reference period of relevant events and

circumstances set out in Article 14(2)(a) of

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 using

the criteria set out in Article 14(2)(b) of

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013

including an assessment of the level, composition

and justification of costs exempt from the

application of Article 14(1)(a) and (b) of

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013;

RT 3 (3.1-3.12) AI 3 b)

(viii) if applicable, a description of any significant

restructuring planned during the reference period

including the level of restructuring costs and a

justification for these costs in relation to the net

benefits to the airspace users over time;

RT 3 (4.1) AI 4 d)

(ix) if applicable, restructuring costs approved from

previous reference periods to be recovered.

RT 3 (4.1) AI 4 e)

3.1.(a).(i) RT 3 (4.1) AI 4 e)

3.1.(a). (ii)

3.1.(a). (iii)

3.1.(a). (iv)

3.1.(b).(i) & (ii)

3.1.(b).(iii)

3.1.(c).(i)

3.1.(c).(ii)

3.1.(c).(iii)

3.1.(c).(iv)

3.1.(d).1.A

3.1.(d).2.A

3.3. Description and explanation of the

interdependencies and trade-offs between the key

performance areas, including the assumptions used

to assess the trade-offs.

3,3

3.2. Description and explanation of the consistency

of the performance targets with the relevant Union-

wide performance targets. When there is no Union-

wide performance target, description and

explanation of the targets within the plan and how

they contribute to the improvement of the

performance of the European ATM network.

RT 1 (5.1-5.2)

8

3.1.(a).(i)

3.1.(a). (ii)

3.1.(a). (iii)

3.1.(a). (iv)

3.1.(b).(i) & (ii)

3.1.(b).(iii)

3.1.(c).(i)

3.1.(c).(ii)

3.1.(c).(iii)

3.1.(c).(iv)

4. INCENTIVE SCHEMES 4

4.1. Description and explanation of the incentive

schemes to be applied on air navigation service

providers.

4,1

5. MILITARY DIMENSION OF THE PLAN

Description of the civil-military dimension of the

plan describing the performance of FUA application

in order to increase capacity with due regard to

military mission effectiveness, and if deemed

appropriate, relevant performance indicators and

targets consistent with the indicators and targets of

the performance plan.

6. ANALYSIS OF SENSITIVITY AND COMPARISON

WITH THE PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE PLAN

6

6.1. Sensitivity to external assumptions. 6,1

6.2. Comparison with previous performance plan. 6,2

7. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PERFORMANCE PLAN

Description of the measures put in place by the

national supervisory authorities to achieve the

performance targets, such as:

(i) monitoring mechanisms to ensure that the ANS

safety programmes and business plans are

implemented;

(ii) measures to monitor and report on the

implementation of the performance plans including

how to address the situation if targets are not

reached during the reference period.

7

5

3.4. Contribution of each air navigation service

provider concerned to the achievement of the

performance targets set for the functional airspace

block in accordance with Article 5(2)(c)(ii).

RT 1 (All) AI 4 a)

9

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1. Description of the situation (scope of the plan,

l ist of air navigation service providers covered, etc.).

1.1.

1.2. Description of the macroeconomic scenario for

the reference period including overall assumptions

(traffic forecast, etc.)

1.2.

1.3. Description of the outcome of the stakeholder

consultation in order to prepare the performance

plan and the agreed compromises as well as the

points of disagreement and the reasons for

disagreement.

1.3. Annex A

1.4. Description of the actions taken by air

navigation service providers to implement the

Network Strategy Plan at functional airspace block

level and other guiding principles for the operation

of the functional airspace block in the long term

perspective..

1.4. Annex B

1.5. List of airports submitted to the performance

scheme in application of Article 1 of the Regulation,

with their average number of IFR air transport

movements.

1.6. List of exempted airports pursuant to Article 1(5)

of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013

together with their average number of IFR air

transport movements.

1.5.

RT ref. AI ref.


Regulation


Annex C

For cost-effiencyBody of

Performance PlanOther annexes

Mapping between the template for the FAB performance plan and Annex II of the performance Regulation

10

NSAs responsible for drawing up the

Performance Plan

NSA Finland (Finnish Transport Safety Agency, Trafi)

NSA responsible for the coordination

within the FAB

NSA Finland (Finnish Transport Safety Agency, Trafi)

List of accountable entities

Avinor AS, Oslo Lufthavn AS, Meteorologisk Institutt (Met.no) , CAA Norway, Finavia, Finnish

Meteorological Institute, Finnish Transport Safety Agency (Trafi) Estonian Air Navigation Service Provider,

Estonian Civil Aviation Administration,Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications (Estonia),

Estonian Aviation Academy, Ministry of the interior (Estonia), Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme (ANSP), Latvijas

vides, geologijas un meteorologijas centrs (MET), State agency CAA Latvia, Ministry of Transport (Latvia)

No cross-border arrangements affecting calculation of KPIs

Geographical scope Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Norway

1.1 - The situation

1 - INTRODUCTION

Commission Regulation (EU) No 390/2013 laying down a Performance Scheme (The Performance Regulation) requires all functional airspace

blocks to develop Performance Plans, in FAB level setting out their performance targets for the next five years. This document provides the

Performance Plan for North European Functional Airspace Block (NEFAB) for the second reference period (RP2) of the performance scheme from

01.01.2015 until 31.12. 2019. The European Parliament and the Council have stated in Regulation (EC) 549/2004 laying down the framework for

the creation of the single European sky that the performance of the air navigation services system as a whole at European level should be

assessed on a regular basis, with due regard to the maintenance of a high level of safety, to check the effectiveness of the measures adopted

and to propose further measures. In order to reach this goal the Parliament and the Council required the Commission to enact implementing

rules for laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services in the European Union.

According to the mandate given, the Commission has issued Regulation (EU) No 390/2013 which lays down the principles for the performance

scheme. The regulation presumes that in the first stage the Commission should adopt European Union wide performance targets and in the

second stage the regulation requires FABs to take actions to adopt individual performance schemes. When adopting individual performance

schemes the FABs should take EU-wide targets into consideration. The Commission will assess the individual performance plans. The

performance scheme should contribute to the sustainable development of the air transport system by proving the overall efficiency of air

navigation services across the key performance areas (KPAs) of safety, environment, capacity and cost-efficiency, in consistency with those

identified in the Performance Framework of the ATM Master Plan, all having regard to the overriding safety objectives.

In order to assess and monitor each KPA, separate key performance indicators (KPIs) will be introduced. According to Regulation (EU) No

390/2013, during the second reference period (RP2) which covers calendar years 2015 - 2019, targets for all four KPAs will be placed and

monitored and it is under the FAB’s discretion if they are willing to adopt and monitor additional KPIs within these KPAs. In the NEFAB area there

are no cross-border services that would affect to the calculation of KPIs.

Additional comments

11

1.2 - Description of the macroeconomic scenario including overall assumptions

ESTONIA

The institutional context for the provision of ANS Estonia, as covered in this plan, is as follows:

The Estonian Civil Aviation Administration (ECAA) is in the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications and it is the

national supervisory authority, responsible for exercising state supervision over the compliance with the requirements deriving from legal acts

regulating the field of activity of ECAA. Main function of ECAA is to ensure aviation safety and execute aviation policy at the national level and in

co-operation with other states and international aviation organisations at international level.

The Estonian Air Navigation Service Provider (EANS) is a state owned stock company and a main service provider in Tallinn FIR and at Tallinn

Airport. EANS is certified for the provision of ATS, AIS and CNS, and has been designated as ATS provider in the airspace described in Estonian

Aeronautical Information Publication.

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications is the Regulatory Authority in Estonia. The objectives of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and

Communications is to create overall conditions for the growth of the competitiveness of the Estonian economy and its balanced and vital

development through the drafting and implementing Estonian economic policy and evaluating its outcomes. Ministry has the overall

responsibility for developing regulations in all areas related to civil aviation.

Ministry of the Interior and the institutions in its governing area have a task to regulate the crisis management, rescue works and to provide

search and rescue service.

Estonian Aviation Academy is a state-owned professional higher education institution providing aviation diplomas and training aviation

specialists. Estonia signed a Declaration of Intent to accede to EUROCONTROL in June 2013. If all goes according to plan, Estonia will become

EUROCONTROL’s Member State on 1 January 2015.

ECONOMIC TRENDS FOR ESTONIA

The Estonian economy developed in diverse directions in 2013, as employment rose despite the economic decline in the first two quarters and

wage growth accelerated. Major develop¬ments for the economy also started in the labour market as the lack of available labour resources and

the consequently improved position of employees in wage negotiations created a chain of economic growth based on rapid wage and domestic

demand growth, which helped to offset the impact of weak external demand. The growth based on domestic demand was primarily driven by

higher household incomes and consumption, while capital formation remained at close to the same level as in the previous year. A small and

open economy can only develop on the back of domestic demand for a short while, and in the long run a continued increase in exports will be

required for economic growth to be assured.

The gross domestic product of Estonia will increase by 1.5% in 2013 and 3.6% in 2014. In 2015 3.5% growth can be expected. GDP growth will be

supported by the increase of foreign and domestic demand in coming years. Growth of exports will be faster compared to imports and therefore

the contribution of net exports will turn positive. During 2016-2017 economic growth will accelerate to 3.6% and 3.8% respectively. The main

drag to growth will be exports, but the contribution of domestic demand should increase as well.

Domestic demand growth rate will decelerate in 2013 after two years of rapid growth. This is mainly caused by marginal growth expectations of

investment, mostly because of the very high base level last year, as growth rates during the past two years exceeded 20%.

The decline in households’ saving rate since the peak of the crisis may have stopped and nominal consumption growth will not exceed income

growth during the following years, but lower inflation rate permits acceleration of consumption next year. In 2015 consumption possibilities are

increased by income tax rate reduction.

Harmonised consumer price (HCPI) increase will slow down from 4.2% in 2012 to 3.2% in 2013 and to 2.7% in 2014. Deceleration in inflation in

the second half of the year is favored by the decreasing effect of foreign factors due to the strong base effect from a year ago and due to fall in

prices of education services.

In 2014, inflation will decelerate due to receding price pressures coming from energy prices. Dropping out the impact from electricity market

opening will be the biggest factor in the beginning of next year. On the other hand, core inflation will accelerate during 2014, contributing from

stronger wage increases and the ending of one-off price decreases of some services. Taking into consideration that there will not be any large

price fluctuations in commodity prices, consumer price increase will stabilize below 3% in following years

FINLAND

This information is based on the reports of Ministry of Finance and on Finavia's business plan.

The institutional context for the provision of ANS in Finland, as covered in this plan, is as follows:

The Ministry of Transport and Communications represents the Member State and

determines the performance plan scope and targets and adopts the performance plan for Finland. The Ministry steers the operations of the

Finnish Transport Safety Agency and the Finnish Meteorological Institute. The Ministry sets general and operational targets for Finavia

Corporation and steers the ownership of the company on behalf of the state of Finland. The Ministry ensures that the national supervisory

authority (NSA) has the necessary resources and capabilities in all key performance areas to carry out the tasks provided for in Commission

regulation (EU) No 390/2013.

The Finnish Transport Safety Agency (Trafi) is the national supervisory authority

(NSA) for air navigation service provision and meteorological (MET) services. Trafi is responsible for drawing up and delivering the NEFAB

performance plan, prepares Finland´s contribution to the NEFAB performance plan and oversees and monitors the performance at local level.

Finavia Corporation provides en-route and terminal air navigation services in Finland. Finavia Corporation owns and runs the airports in Finland

(excluding Seinäjoki and Mikkeli).

The Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI) provides meteorological services in Finland. The FMI is responsible for aviation weather forecast

services and observations in 25 airports in Finland.

ECONOMICAL (Finland)

The euro area economy is recovering. However growth will remain slow because of low employment levels, balance sheet adjustments in both

the household and public sector, and persistently low competitiveness. The financial and debt crisis has eroded the euro area’s growth potential.

The US economy is continuing on its path of slow recovery. World trade growth remains exceptionally sluggish.

In 2014 GDP growth will edge up to 0.8% on the back of domestic consumption and exports. Growth will be bolstered by gradual recovery in the

euro area, accelerating export demand and continued low interest rates. In 2015 it is predicted that growth will reach around 1.8% and be more

broadly based than before. Historically the growth is weak and cumulative growth during 2013 - 2015 will be only 1.4%. In the last years of the

outlook period the GDP growth rate will exceed potential output growth, despite the historically sluggish rate of economic growth. The

economy’s growth potential is low because labour input is stagnant, restructuring has destroyed existing production capacity, and there is very

little investment in new production capacity.

Sluggishness in the domestic economy has been reflected in consumer prices, and there has also been little upward price pressure from the

international raw materials markets. 2014 average projected inflation is 2.1%. During 2014 increased indirect taxes will push up prices by 0.6

percentage points. The unemployment rate will rise to 8.4% this year and only drop below 8% towards the end of 2015. Unemployment will fall

only slowly due to sluggish economic growth and mismatch problems in the labour market.

The general government budgetary position is inevitably affected by the fact that GDP growth has been in negative territory for two consecutive

years: public finances will remain in deficit over the coming years.

Central government and local authorities are clearly in deficit, the earnings-related pension sector shows a surplus and other social security

funds are close to balance.

Public debt will rise both in nominal terms and in relation to GDP, and during 2014 the debt ratio will exceed 60%. Public debt threatens to

continue to increase in the medium term. Public expenditure to GDP is set to climb to its highest level in 15 years.

POLITICAL (Finland)

The Single European Sky-initiative is putting pressure on the ANSPs to perform better. FAB- and national level performance plans have been (will

be) issued in order to carry out the ambitious plans of the Commission. All NEFAB states are subject to the FAB-wide targets within the Key

Performance Areas of cost-efficiency, capacity, safety and environment for the second reference period of the performance scheme

On national level, the Navigation- and Surveillance strategy outlines the domestic requirements for effective ATM. The relocation of the Air

Force bases alters the national air traffic flows in a way that the structure of airspace has to be altered to cater for the changed needs.

Coordination and exchange of information at state level, NSA-level and ANSP-level is considered to be of great importance in order to adapt to

changes in the political framework.

SOCIOLOGICAL (Finland)

The business of the ANSP involves many stakeholders. The stakeholders have different requirements, dependent on the nature of their task or

business. In the operational perspective there are clear differences between civil and military airspace users and between commercial air traffic

and different non-commercial operations.

During the next five years, the management of relations towards the NSA’s and States will be of major importance. The bi-directional flow of

information will be essential.

TECHNOLOGICAL (Finland)

The European ATM Master Plan is the driver for new operational concepts and supporting technology. The ANSPs and their customers will be

more dependent on advanced technology in the future calling for robust solutions with sufficient capacity and redundancy to ensure the safe

operation of aircraft.

Requirements for interoperability may drive the ATM supplier industry to new business and service models, and commercial off the shelf

products and system integration solutions may play a more important role in the future. At the same time the air traffic industry becomes less

dependent on ground navigation infrastructure as satellite navigation is more widely used as the prime source of navigation.

LEGAL (Finland)

It is foreseen that further developments within the SES-legislation may mean more guidance (regulation) in the direction of true competition for

service provision in each state, industrial partnership and bilateral cooperation.

At state-level, NEFAB continues to shape the strategies of each ANSP involved in the state level agreement. National strategies and plans have to

be aligned with the Eurocontrol ATM Master Plan, NEFAB- and Borealis Business Plans.

ENVIRONMENTAL (Finland)

A continued increased demand for more environmentally friendly operations is foreseen, both from a purely economic perspective and from an

environmental perspective. This demand will drive ANSP planning and the choice of future solutions for airspace management and airspace

design.

More public attention to aircraft noise is also expected, which in turn may result in conflicts between targets for emissions and noise. This can to

some extent be alleviated by improved navigation methods allowing for advanced Performance Based Navigation procedures to ensure both

emission reductions and reduction of the number of people that are affected by aircraft noise.

For the second reference period (2015 – 2019) under the performance scheme, the European Commission will develop binding targets on

environmental performance also at FAB level.

12

FINLAND




































POLITICAL (Finland)





















LEGAL (Finland)








design.






13

FINLAND




































POLITICAL (Finland)





















LEGAL (Finland)








design.






LATVIA

Aviation Department (MoT) – responsible for developing aviation policy, like development programs, concept proposals and is one of the

departments under Ministry of Transport. The Aviation Department also issues licenses for performing commercial activities in the field of air

traffic services and commercial aviation.

Civil Aviation Agency – (CAA of Latvia) civil aviation safety oversight entity established under the Ministry of Transport., responsible for

supervision of airspace utilization, certification and continuous safety oversight. Within the scope of performance plan, the CAA of Latvia is

responsible for developing and elaborating the performance plan under the EU wide performance scheme.

The State Joint Stock Company “Latvijas gaisa Satiksme” (LGS) - is the sole air traffic service provider, and is a State Enterprise. LGS was founded

in 1991 with 100% state ownership. On the 12th June 1997 the enterprise changed its legal status and became a State Joint Stock Company. LGS

is under the supervision of the Ministry of Transport. LGS is completely separated and independent from LCAA. There is a clear organizational

separation between LCAA and LGS. LGS provides air traffic control to all military flights that operate as GAT. There is no separate military ATC

unit; therefore there is no provision of military ATM services to civil aircraft in Latvia. LGS provides all services related to ATM. The Search and

Rescue Coordination Centre is in LGS. CNS/ATM systems comprising advanced data links, radar stations, navigational aids, data and voice

communication systems are owned and maintained by LGS.

State limited Liability Company "Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Centre" (LEGMC) - certified and designated MET provider for

meteorological forecasts of Riga FIR to meet Latvia’s obligations under ICAO Annex 3. LEGMC is under the CAA of Latvia safety oversight.

LEGMC as 100% state owned enterprise provides several defined services to the state.

Political situation

On 4th October 2014, parliamentary elections would take place (elections of Saeima) . It is not yet clear what to expect from the new political

parties which could will be represented in the Saeima, what will be the outcome of elections and what will be the economic policies

implemented by the newly established parliamentary government in the field of taxation policy.

After the elections, the president would invite the candidates for the post of Prime Minister. The Prime Minister would then appoint:

• state ministers (after confidence vote by the Saeima);

• Parliamentary Secretaries of the ministries (according to recommendation by the respective minister);

• ministers (after confidence vote by the Saeima);

• Deputy Prime Minister;

• Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister's Office and advisers to the Prime Minister.

Cabinet of Ministers (the rule maker) is a collegial institution, which adopts its decisions at the sittings of the Cabinet of Ministers, within the

scope of its competence, considers policy planning documents, external and internal legal acts, orders of the Cabinet of Ministers, informative

statements, national positions and official opinions of the State. Upon approval by the Cabinet of Ministers, all legal acts are published in the

official newspaper “Latvijas Vēstnesis”.

Economical situation

GDP. From 2008 to 2010 economy of Latvia experienced one of the sharpest downturns in the world and the sharpest in EU when the fall of GDP

reached 21%. Implementing structural reforms and drastic cuts of expenditure, including decreases wages, salaries, allowances, compensations

and as well as expenditure for health, life and accident insurance, the overall consolidation measures reached almost 17% of GDP during time

period from 2008 to 2012.

Latvia returned to growth in the latter half of 2010 as a result of economic stabilization measures, while maintaining fixed conversion rate with

the euro, which was accompanied by favorable situation in external markets and increase in market confidence. The euro adoption has been

viewed as important objective of the exit strategy from the international loan program.

At present, Latvia continues to show rapid and sustainable growth and has achieved considerable improvement in the fiscal position, but still

needs to boost productivity and strengthen competitiveness by implementing reforms.

Latvia`s GDP in 2012 increased 5% and strong economic growth has been continuing in 2013, albeit at as lightly slower pace still among the

fastest in the EU. The slight slowdown in 2013 can be attributed to the generally economic environment in the EU. Domestic demand and private

consumption that continued as a positive driver behind the economic growth and was fuelled by a rise in disposable income of households

accounted for the major contribution to the annual GDP growth in 2013. At the same time, the contribution of other GDP components was

smaller. Investment activity remained relatively sluggish.

Projected GDP growth in 2014 is 4,2%, but in the medium term Latvian economic outlook is becoming increasingly ambiguous. External risks,

however, are on the downside and they have increased significantly. Therefore, it is expected that the GDP growth rate will be more subdued.

The risks are mostly related to external factors - situation aggravated by the accelerating tension and uncertainty about the mutual relationship

of Ukraine and Russia, that could lead to further weakening of the economic activity and growth in previously mentioned countries and in the

region with a unfavorable effect also on the Latvian economy, e.g. air transport sector in particular.

Inflation.

During 2012 inflation gradually decreased, reflecting international food and energy prices and is among the EU`s lowest.

Inflation is key element in calculating the costs and unit rates in real terms. Low inflation was the key to ensuring the compliance with the

Maastricht criteria, as has been specified in the EC Convergence Report on June 2013. In FY 2012 the inflation forecasted in NPP matched the

actual inflation incurred; however, this is not the case with the FY 2013, when actual inflation was zero. As of 1st of January 2014 Latvia became

the Member State of the euro area, in the middle term inflation is expected to maintain below 2,5% per year, reflecting price convergence with

the euro area.

Social situation

Unemployment has been gradually declining from peak in 2010. The jobseeker rate has declined from 21,3% in 2010 to 11,4% in 2013. Further

gradual decrease is expected to continue over the coming years. At the same time, employment is likely to increase slower than growth, as the

output will be firstly based on increase productivity, but according to the medium-term forecasts of the Ministry of Economics of Latvia the labor

demand will continue growing. Unemployment rate might drop to approximately 6% by 2020 and shortage of labor in the sectors with rapid

growth will become a topical issue.

Currently, salaries in LGS are small when compared to other European countries and NEFAB countries. In 2011 employment costs in Latvia per

one ATCO in OPS were 33.1% of the average EU level. Therefore, equalization of wages (convergence) has to be taken into consideration in RP2.

Taking into account the recent upturn in the economic sentiment, there is a big pressure for the increase salaries and improvement of social

guaranties. Partly the increases will be made from increasing the cost efficiency of the employees, however it is anticipated that the salary

increases will outpace the increases of efficiency.

Improvements in the EU economy are crucial for expected Latvia sustain high growth in the medium term. General economic situation in Europe

and in international arena as a whole will affect traffic volumes and traffic trends in Latvia.

Additionally, it should be noted that Latvian ANSP is strongly dependent on several large clients and especially from the largest one which is

national air carrier Air Baltic. In 2012 it generated 18.5% of total revenues, accounted for 24% of all flights in Riga FIR and it had a strong share

of seats at its Riga hub with 61%. Taking into account Air Baltic financial problems, last two years its CEO has been focusing on the carrier`s

restructuring program to restore its profitability. At the same time an EU investigation into state aid received in 2011 is ongoing and could

potentially lead to the carrier having to repay the funds received from the state. This would increase the pressure to secure fresh investments

from private sector investor.

Currently Latvian ANSP cannot predict the future traffic development of Air Baltic as EU state aid investigations puts air carrier`s growth plans on

hold while possible outcome is unclear.

Latvia is one of the countries with historically the lowest unit rate within EU area. Nevertheless, yearly unit rate reduction in the adopted NPP

for RP1 is 2.9%.

14

LATVIA

Aviation Department (MoT) – responsible for developing aviation policy, like development programs, concept proposals and is one of the

departments under Ministry of Transport. The Aviation Department also issues licenses for performing commercial activities in the field of air

traffic services and commercial aviation.

Civil Aviation Agency – (CAA of Latvia) civil aviation safety oversight entity established under the Ministry of Transport., responsible for

supervision of airspace utilization, certification and continuous safety oversight. Within the scope of performance plan, the CAA of Latvia is

responsible for developing and elaborating the performance plan under the EU wide performance scheme.

The State Joint Stock Company “Latvijas gaisa Satiksme” (LGS) - is the sole air traffic service provider, and is a State Enterprise. LGS was founded

in 1991 with 100% state ownership. On the 12th June 1997 the enterprise changed its legal status and became a State Joint Stock Company. LGS

is under the supervision of the Ministry of Transport. LGS is completely separated and independent from LCAA. There is a clear organizational

separation between LCAA and LGS. LGS provides air traffic control to all military flights that operate as GAT. There is no separate military ATC

unit; therefore there is no provision of military ATM services to civil aircraft in Latvia. LGS provides all services related to ATM. The Search and

Rescue Coordination Centre is in LGS. CNS/ATM systems comprising advanced data links, radar stations, navigational aids, data and voice

communication systems are owned and maintained by LGS.

State limited Liability Company "Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Centre" (LEGMC) - certified and designated MET provider for

meteorological forecasts of Riga FIR to meet Latvia’s obligations under ICAO Annex 3. LEGMC is under the CAA of Latvia safety oversight.

LEGMC as 100% state owned enterprise provides several defined services to the state.

Political situation

On 4th October 2014, parliamentary elections would take place (elections of Saeima) . It is not yet clear what to expect from the new political

parties which could will be represented in the Saeima, what will be the outcome of elections and what will be the economic policies

implemented by the newly established parliamentary government in the field of taxation policy.

After the elections, the president would invite the candidates for the post of Prime Minister. The Prime Minister would then appoint:

• state ministers (after confidence vote by the Saeima);

• Parliamentary Secretaries of the ministries (according to recommendation by the respective minister);

• ministers (after confidence vote by the Saeima);

• Deputy Prime Minister;

• Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister's Office and advisers to the Prime Minister.

Cabinet of Ministers (the rule maker) is a collegial institution, which adopts its decisions at the sittings of the Cabinet of Ministers, within the

scope of its competence, considers policy planning documents, external and internal legal acts, orders of the Cabinet of Ministers, informative

statements, national positions and official opinions of the State. Upon approval by the Cabinet of Ministers, all legal acts are published in the

official newspaper “Latvijas Vēstnesis”.

Economical situation

GDP. From 2008 to 2010 economy of Latvia experienced one of the sharpest downturns in the world and the sharpest in EU when the fall of GDP

reached 21%. Implementing structural reforms and drastic cuts of expenditure, including decreases wages, salaries, allowances, compensations

and as well as expenditure for health, life and accident insurance, the overall consolidation measures reached almost 17% of GDP during time

period from 2008 to 2012.

Latvia returned to growth in the latter half of 2010 as a result of economic stabilization measures, while maintaining fixed conversion rate with

the euro, which was accompanied by favorable situation in external markets and increase in market confidence. The euro adoption has been

viewed as important objective of the exit strategy from the international loan program.

At present, Latvia continues to show rapid and sustainable growth and has achieved considerable improvement in the fiscal position, but still

needs to boost productivity and strengthen competitiveness by implementing reforms.

Latvia`s GDP in 2012 increased 5% and strong economic growth has been continuing in 2013, albeit at as lightly slower pace still among the

fastest in the EU. The slight slowdown in 2013 can be attributed to the generally economic environment in the EU. Domestic demand and private

consumption that continued as a positive driver behind the economic growth and was fuelled by a rise in disposable income of households

accounted for the major contribution to the annual GDP growth in 2013. At the same time, the contribution of other GDP components was

smaller. Investment activity remained relatively sluggish.

Projected GDP growth in 2014 is 4,2%, but in the medium term Latvian economic outlook is becoming increasingly ambiguous. External risks,

however, are on the downside and they have increased significantly. Therefore, it is expected that the GDP growth rate will be more subdued.

The risks are mostly related to external factors - situation aggravated by the accelerating tension and uncertainty about the mutual relationship

of Ukraine and Russia, that could lead to further weakening of the economic activity and growth in previously mentioned countries and in the

region with a unfavorable effect also on the Latvian economy, e.g. air transport sector in particular.

Inflation.

During 2012 inflation gradually decreased, reflecting international food and energy prices and is among the EU`s lowest.

Inflation is key element in calculating the costs and unit rates in real terms. Low inflation was the key to ensuring the compliance with the

Maastricht criteria, as has been specified in the EC Convergence Report on June 2013. In FY 2012 the inflation forecasted in NPP matched the

actual inflation incurred; however, this is not the case with the FY 2013, when actual inflation was zero. As of 1st of January 2014 Latvia became

the Member State of the euro area, in the middle term inflation is expected to maintain below 2,5% per year, reflecting price convergence with

the euro area.

Social situation

Unemployment has been gradually declining from peak in 2010. The jobseeker rate has declined from 21,3% in 2010 to 11,4% in 2013. Further

gradual decrease is expected to continue over the coming years. At the same time, employment is likely to increase slower than growth, as the

output will be firstly based on increase productivity, but according to the medium-term forecasts of the Ministry of Economics of Latvia the labor

demand will continue growing. Unemployment rate might drop to approximately 6% by 2020 and shortage of labor in the sectors with rapid

growth will become a topical issue.

Currently, salaries in LGS are small when compared to other European countries and NEFAB countries. In 2011 employment costs in Latvia per

one ATCO in OPS were 33.1% of the average EU level. Therefore, equalization of wages (convergence) has to be taken into consideration in RP2.

Taking into account the recent upturn in the economic sentiment, there is a big pressure for the increase salaries and improvement of social

guaranties. Partly the increases will be made from increasing the cost efficiency of the employees, however it is anticipated that the salary

increases will outpace the increases of efficiency.

Improvements in the EU economy are crucial for expected Latvia sustain high growth in the medium term. General economic situation in Europe

and in international arena as a whole will affect traffic volumes and traffic trends in Latvia.

Additionally, it should be noted that Latvian ANSP is strongly dependent on several large clients and especially from the largest one which is

national air carrier Air Baltic. In 2012 it generated 18.5% of total revenues, accounted for 24% of all flights in Riga FIR and it had a strong share

of seats at its Riga hub with 61%. Taking into account Air Baltic financial problems, last two years its CEO has been focusing on the carrier`s

restructuring program to restore its profitability. At the same time an EU investigation into state aid received in 2011 is ongoing and could

potentially lead to the carrier having to repay the funds received from the state. This would increase the pressure to secure fresh investments

from private sector investor.

Currently Latvian ANSP cannot predict the future traffic development of Air Baltic as EU state aid investigations puts air carrier`s growth plans on

hold while possible outcome is unclear.

Latvia is one of the countries with historically the lowest unit rate within EU area. Nevertheless, yearly unit rate reduction in the adopted NPP

for RP1 is 2.9%.

NORWAY:

Avinor A/S (Ltd.)

Avinor A/S (Ltd.) is a 100% state-owned private limited company. The company has approximately 2,700 employees and is responsible for the

planning, establishment and operation of airports and air navigation systems in the entire country. The Air Navigation Services division is

responsible for the provision of air traffic services in Norwegian airspace, including designated airspace over Norway and the Barents Sea. Avinor

A/S also provides air navigation services at 46 aerodromes, including the main airport, Oslo Airport Gardermoen.

Avinor A/S is in the process of establishing a subsidiary that will be responsible for providing air navigation services. The new subsidiary will have

separate accounts and financial statements. The subsidiary will make it easier for the Norwegian CAA to monitor the cost bases. The new

subsidiary is expected to be established before the start of the second reference period.

Oslo Lufthavn AS (Ltd.)

Oslo Lufthavn A/S (Ltd.) is a 100% Avinor owned limited company. The company has approximately 700 employees, and is responsible for the

operation of the main airport in Norway, Oslo/Gardermoen airport.

Meteorologisk institutt. (The Norwegian Meteorological Institute)

The Norwegian Meteorological Institute is a state administrative body, under the Ministry of Education and Research, that provides

meteorological services to both Military and Civil aviation in airspace under the Norwegian responsibility. The Norwegian Meteorological

Institute has approximately 440 employees. Approximately 70 employees are engaged within the provision of meteorological services for the

aviation sector.

The Meteorological Institute has established three meteorological watch offices which are responsible for the continuous monitoring of the

meteorological conditions in Norwegian Flight Information Regions. The Ministry of Transport has designated The Norwegian Meteorological

Institute as the meteorological service provider in all airspace under Norwegian responsibility. The designation is valid until 2012, but will be

prolonged until 2014.

The Ministry of Transport and Communications (Samferdselsdepartementet).

The Ministry of Transport and Communications has the overall responsibility for developing regulations in all areas related to civil aviation. The

Ministry of Transport and Communications maintains the State's interests as the sole owner of Avinor A/S (Ltd.).

The Civil Aviation Authority (Luftfartstilsynet)

The Civil Aviation Authority - Norway (CAA) is an independent administrative body under the Ministry of Transport with the administrative

authority in Norwegian civil aviation. Its main task is to contribute to increased safety in civil aviation. The CAA develop and implements rules

and regulations, certifies and oversees among others air navigation service providers, airlines, technical organizations, aviation training schools,

aircraft, license holders and airports. The Ministry of Transport has appointed Norwegian CAA as National Supervisory Authority (NSA).

The department of Aerodromes and ANS of the CAA acts as National Supervisory Authority. In cooperation with the Ministry of Transport, the

department is responsible for developing regulations for providers of ANS. The department also regulates and performs safety oversight and

audits of organisations and competences involved in the provision of such services.

Economic trends for Norway

This chapter is based on the report “Economic trends for Norway and abroad - Upturn to start in 2015” published by Statistics Norway on the

6th of December 2013.

Mainland Norway’s GDP had a weaker development in 2013 than previously projected. The estimated annual growth of 1.8 per cent was well

below the trend growth that is now estimated at around 2.5 per cent.

Despite good income growth and low interest rates, the development in household demand is currently weak. Likewise, foreign demand is

making no appreciable contribution to output growth in Norway. This will also impact the development in 2014. Unemployment is expected to

rise slightly in 2014 and into 2015.

Increased demand on the mainland and internationally is behind an expected turnabout to a modest upturn from 2015. Despite low interest

rates and strong growth in household wealth, household saving has increased in recent years. The relatively good development in households’

economy is however expected to continue. Saving behavior is therefore expected to gradually normalize. In 2015 and 2016 Norway expect a

significant increase in household consumption.

Norway also expects that the Economic growth among Norway’s trading partners will pick up. This will increase international demand.

Money market rates are expected to rise from 2015. At the end of 2016, the three month money market rate is expected to increase by just over

on percentage point from the level in autumn 2013.

Comparisons with RP1 Norway was only slightly affected by the financial crises and the Euro debt crises. In contrast to many other European

countries Norway therefore saw a higher increase in traffic than what was projected in the performance plan. Despite of this Avinor A/S

reduced its cost base. The cost savings can be explained by understaffing and postponed investments. The costs are expected to increase in 2013

and 2014.

In the area of cost-efficiency Avinor A/S has delivered more than expected. This will be taken into consideration when setting the cost-efficiency

targets for the second reference period. In the area of capacity Avinor A/S had significant delays in the summer of 2012. These problems have

been resolved.

In summary the first reference period can be deemed a success. However there are still some room for improvements.

First the level of detail in the performance plan should allow both the Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority and stakeholders to easily verify if the

ANSP achieves the set targets and what assumption the targets are based upon. This is especially important for investments. The investments in

RP2 will increase the costs of capital significantly, and it’s important that both the benefits and costs are visible and testable.

Secondly the capacity target should be based on the cost optimum model. In the first reference period the capacity targets were set against the

backdrop of a historical trend. This method for calculating the capacity target doesn’t take into account that the ANSP may have had excess

capacity for extended periods compared to the cost optimum. This will be taken into account in the performance plan for the second reference

period.

Even though Avinor A/S delivered more than expected in the area of cost efficiency in the first reference period, the Norwegian Civil Aviation

Authority believe that there are still rooms for cost efficiency improvements. The strong contribution in the first reference period can therefore

not be an excuse for not contributing to the EU-wide targets in the second reference period.

15

NORWAY:

Avinor A/S (Ltd.)

Avinor A/S (Ltd.) is a 100% state-owned private limited company. The company has approximately 2,700 employees and is responsible for the

planning, establishment and operation of airports and air navigation systems in the entire country. The Air Navigation Services division is

responsible for the provision of air traffic services in Norwegian airspace, including designated airspace over Norway and the Barents Sea. Avinor

A/S also provides air navigation services at 46 aerodromes, including the main airport, Oslo Airport Gardermoen.

Avinor A/S is in the process of establishing a subsidiary that will be responsible for providing air navigation services. The new subsidiary will have

separate accounts and financial statements. The subsidiary will make it easier for the Norwegian CAA to monitor the cost bases. The new

subsidiary is expected to be established before the start of the second reference period.

Oslo Lufthavn AS (Ltd.)

Oslo Lufthavn A/S (Ltd.) is a 100% Avinor owned limited company. The company has approximately 700 employees, and is responsible for the

operation of the main airport in Norway, Oslo/Gardermoen airport.

Meteorologisk institutt. (The Norwegian Meteorological Institute)

The Norwegian Meteorological Institute is a state administrative body, under the Ministry of Education and Research, that provides

meteorological services to both Military and Civil aviation in airspace under the Norwegian responsibility. The Norwegian Meteorological

Institute has approximately 440 employees. Approximately 70 employees are engaged within the provision of meteorological services for the

aviation sector.

The Meteorological Institute has established three meteorological watch offices which are responsible for the continuous monitoring of the

meteorological conditions in Norwegian Flight Information Regions. The Ministry of Transport has designated The Norwegian Meteorological

Institute as the meteorological service provider in all airspace under Norwegian responsibility. The designation is valid until 2012, but will be

prolonged until 2014.

The Ministry of Transport and Communications (Samferdselsdepartementet).

The Ministry of Transport and Communications has the overall responsibility for developing regulations in all areas related to civil aviation. The

Ministry of Transport and Communications maintains the State's interests as the sole owner of Avinor A/S (Ltd.).

The Civil Aviation Authority (Luftfartstilsynet)

The Civil Aviation Authority - Norway (CAA) is an independent administrative body under the Ministry of Transport with the administrative

authority in Norwegian civil aviation. Its main task is to contribute to increased safety in civil aviation. The CAA develop and implements rules

and regulations, certifies and oversees among others air navigation service providers, airlines, technical organizations, aviation training schools,

aircraft, license holders and airports. The Ministry of Transport has appointed Norwegian CAA as National Supervisory Authority (NSA).

The department of Aerodromes and ANS of the CAA acts as National Supervisory Authority. In cooperation with the Ministry of Transport, the

department is responsible for developing regulations for providers of ANS. The department also regulates and performs safety oversight and

audits of organisations and competences involved in the provision of such services.

Economic trends for Norway

This chapter is based on the report “Economic trends for Norway and abroad - Upturn to start in 2015” published by Statistics Norway on the

6th of December 2013.

Mainland Norway’s GDP had a weaker development in 2013 than previously projected. The estimated annual growth of 1.8 per cent was well

below the trend growth that is now estimated at around 2.5 per cent.

Despite good income growth and low interest rates, the development in household demand is currently weak. Likewise, foreign demand is

making no appreciable contribution to output growth in Norway. This will also impact the development in 2014. Unemployment is expected to

rise slightly in 2014 and into 2015.

Increased demand on the mainland and internationally is behind an expected turnabout to a modest upturn from 2015. Despite low interest

rates and strong growth in household wealth, household saving has increased in recent years. The relatively good development in households’

economy is however expected to continue. Saving behavior is therefore expected to gradually normalize. In 2015 and 2016 Norway expect a

significant increase in household consumption.

Norway also expects that the Economic growth among Norway’s trading partners will pick up. This will increase international demand.

Money market rates are expected to rise from 2015. At the end of 2016, the three month money market rate is expected to increase by just over

on percentage point from the level in autumn 2013.

Comparisons with RP1 Norway was only slightly affected by the financial crises and the Euro debt crises. In contrast to many other European

countries Norway therefore saw a higher increase in traffic than what was projected in the performance plan. Despite of this Avinor A/S

reduced its cost base. The cost savings can be explained by understaffing and postponed investments. The costs are expected to increase in 2013

and 2014.



been resolved.








period.

Even though Avinor A/S delivered more than expected in the area of cost efficiency in the first reference period, the Norwegian Civil Aviation

Authority believe that there are still rooms for cost efficiency improvements. The strong contribution in the first reference period can therefore

not be an excuse for not contributing to the EU-wide targets in the second reference period.

16

Number of Meetings 6

Name of meeting NEFAB consultation

Date 26th March 2014

Type of event Consultation

Level FAB

Stakeholders Airspace users (including Mil), IATA, ANSP, Worker unions.

Deadline for responses 19th March 2014

Main issues

Based on the consultation meeting, a number of comments were raised by IATA, which were

considered as the main issues.

1) Further details on investments from all states were requested. One specific item was investments

related to the planned activities with DK-SE FAB concerning the free route airspace activities.

2) Even though it was noted that Estonia and Latvia have already low unit rates, their effort to

contributing to the EU-wide targets was not seen sufficient by IATA.

3) A stronger focus on the overall FAB strategy and expected benefits of the FAB in RP2 was

requested.

4) Incentive scheme, since it was noted that some states might achieve the benefit with just

achieving the capacity target. (Methodology for incentives was the same for all states even though

there were different figures in the capacity)

Actions agreed upon

Stakeholders were requested to provide also written comments by the end of March. A specific

comment response document has been created and it is attached to the plan. It was also

noted in the meeting that the plan is not final yet and the comments raised from the consultation

are duly considered during the finalization of the plan.

Points of disagreement and reasons

Additional commentsIn Annex A is enclosed a list of invited stakeholder and a list of stakeholders that attended the

consultation.

Name of meeting National consultation / Finland

Date 24th April 2014


Level National

Stakeholders Airspace users (including Mil), ANSP, trade unions.

Deadline for responses 24th April 2014

Main issuesThe main topics that raised discussion were capacity and cost-efficiency. However, no specific issues

were seen regarding these items.

Actions agreed uponAttendees were encouraged to send additional comments for the performance plan by the end of

April. No comments were received.


Additional comments In addition to formal consultation, an additional meeting with IATA was arranged.

Name of meeting National consultation /Latvia



Level National

Stakeholders Airspace users (including Mil), ANSP, Trade unions, airports

Deadline for responses 20.3.2014

Meeting #1

The following issues were raised during the meeting:

1) LAAF - general statements of concern about insufficient level of just culture

- the CAA proposed to submit constructive possible solutions to the raised issued, in addition to

what has already been proposed in the RP2 PP - covering changes in the legislation. The agrreed

deadline for providing constructive proposals was 26th of March.

2) Airport - possibility to correlate level of safety with number of occurences and possibility to

directly measure the level of safety.

- currently, the only ANSP safety performance is within the scope, not covering all aviation

domains, for which specific direct safety level measuring methodology should be developed.

3) LAAF - possible decrease in staff salaries and ATCO staff reduction, decrease in ATCO social

benefits.

-the RP2 PP does not contain plans for decrease in staff or decrease in salaries, at least not under

the factors which fall under the ANSP cotrol. Currently, the highest amount of cost is already

attributed to the staff costs. Increase or decrease in the amount of traffic, will imopact the resulting

income of the money. This factor along with the possible future synergies in the NEFAB are outside

the direct influence of the ANSP, and thus cannot be assesed with certainty. Possible increase in the

traffic would be associated with the necessity for higher work efficiency, thus also the increase in

income.

4) LAAF - possibility to balance large investments planned in technical improvements with the

possible investment in the staff training, increase in salaries since the Latvian ATCO salaries are

some of the lowest in the EU.

-investments in the technology improvements are mandated in many cases by the Single European

Sky regulations. These may be considered as costs that are not entirely under control of ANSP.

However, increase in the ATCO salaries is planned by taking into consideration the external factors

known at the moment of the preparation of the Draft version of Performance plan. Some of the

factors came to our knowledge only recently, for example, the possibility of economic sanctions

against Russian Federation in light of Crimea conflict. The investments that are planned are not

100% precise currently, they will change in the future. A new piece of information available that

already may impact the investment plans, namely Data Link projectis where the initial costs were

assessed too low. The current investment plans are conservative and do reflect the requirements of

EU wide initiatives known at the moment of preparation of Performance Plan.

5) CAA addressed to the MoT representative a question about adopting the proposed capacity

1.3 - Stakeholder consultation

Meeting #2

Meeting #3

Main issues

17

Actions agreed upon

1) Labor Union would provide its vision of the RP2 issues by the 26th of March.

2) Since the airport could not attend the Performance workshop for airports on 20th of march, the

CAA will provide relevant info to the airport representatives electronically.


Additional comments

No written questions by the participating parties were submitted before the consultations meeting.

On April 2nd, a written letter was received from the Latvian Federation of Aviation Trade Unions

(LAAF) addressing their vision of the issues and proposals discussed in the consultation meeting.

Additional clarification for staff costs and safety aspects were requested.

Out of all invited stakeholders, the following representatives attended: airport "Riga", ANSP "LGS",

Latvian State limited Liability Company "Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Centre"

(LEGMC), Latvian ATCO Trade Union and Latvian Aviation Trade Union representative, and Ministry

of Transport.

Name of meeting National consultation / Norway



Level National

Stakeholders Airspace users (including Mil), ANSP, Worker unions.

Deadline for responses 11th of March 2014

The following issues were raised during the meeting:

1) LAAF - general statements of concern about insufficient level of just culture

- the CAA proposed to submit constructive possible solutions to the raised issued, in addition to

what has already been proposed in the RP2 PP - covering changes in the legislation. The agrreed

deadline for providing constructive proposals was 26th of March.

2) Airport - possibility to correlate level of safety with number of occurences and possibility to

directly measure the level of safety.

- currently, the only ANSP safety performance is within the scope, not covering all aviation

domains, for which specific direct safety level measuring methodology should be developed.

3) LAAF - possible decrease in staff salaries and ATCO staff reduction, decrease in ATCO social

benefits.

-the RP2 PP does not contain plans for decrease in staff or decrease in salaries, at least not under

the factors which fall under the ANSP cotrol. Currently, the highest amount of cost is already

attributed to the staff costs. Increase or decrease in the amount of traffic, will imopact the resulting

income of the money. This factor along with the possible future synergies in the NEFAB are outside

the direct influence of the ANSP, and thus cannot be assesed with certainty. Possible increase in the

traffic would be associated with the necessity for higher work efficiency, thus also the increase in

income.

4) LAAF - possibility to balance large investments planned in technical improvements with the

possible investment in the staff training, increase in salaries since the Latvian ATCO salaries are

some of the lowest in the EU.

-investments in the technology improvements are mandated in many cases by the Single European

Sky regulations. These may be considered as costs that are not entirely under control of ANSP.

However, increase in the ATCO salaries is planned by taking into consideration the external factors

known at the moment of the preparation of the Draft version of Performance plan. Some of the

factors came to our knowledge only recently, for example, the possibility of economic sanctions

against Russian Federation in light of Crimea conflict. The investments that are planned are not

100% precise currently, they will change in the future. A new piece of information available that

already may impact the investment plans, namely Data Link projectis where the initial costs were

assessed too low. The current investment plans are conservative and do reflect the requirements of

EU wide initiatives known at the moment of preparation of Performance Plan.

5) CAA addressed to the MoT representative a question about adopting the proposed capacity

Main issues Summary of the National Consultation of 19th March 2014

In this summary the main talking-points from the National Consultation will be highlighted. The N-

CAA will also give a try to explain how the input from the stakeholders will be addressed in the

continuing work with the performance plan.

Safety

EoSM

The stakeholders was interested to get information about how the N-CAA plan to achieve the set

target of at least level C for all management objectives and the cost associated with this.

The N-CAA has produced a GAP-analysis and is in the process of making a plan for the

implementation of each management objective. The implementation of the management objectives

is a continuous task that affects all departments of the N-CAA. This won’t result in increased NSA-

costs for the service provider.

RAT-methodology:

It was brought to our attention that the proposed target for the use of RAT was not in line with the

EU-wide target. The N-CAA will adjust the target accordingly.

Capacity

En-route delay:

The stakeholders wanted to get more information about the cost-optimum capacity. The N-CAA said

it would be extremely difficult and time consuming to calculate the cost-optimum capacity. Such an

analysis requires considerable knowledge about the cost of delay and the cost of

maintaining/increasing capacity. Among other things this would require us to look at the average

delay costs of the airspace users, the airport structure and the costs associated with a complex

airport network, the costs of increasing capacity etc.

The N-CAA will however request that Avinor demonstrates how different capacity targets (0.05,

0.08, 0.13) will affect the cost base.

The N-CAA would further encourage the airspace users to contribute to the target setting by sharing

all information which the N-CAA should take into consideration when setting the capacity target.

The Norwegian Air Traffic Controller Association emphasized that there is a link between safety and

capacity, and that this should be considered when setting the capacity targets.

The N-CAA is of the opinion that safety establishes mandatory requirements for all ATM operation

and is a KPA to which the assessments of all the other performance areas should be linked.

ATFM delay:

The Norwegian Air Traffic Controller Association said that there is a link between en-route delay and

ATFM-delay, and that this should be taken into consideration when setting the ATFM delay target.

Increased en-route delay could result in an increased ATFM-delay. Avinor pointed to the fact that

delays that can be traced back to an en-route, won’t be considered as an ATFM delay.

There is no reference value for ATFM-delay, and a large part of the ATFM delay is a result of bad

weather. The N-CAA is considering whether we should divide the ATFM delay target in to two parts,

one that relates to controllable factors and one that relates to uncontrollable factors. The N-CAA

would appreciate a feedback on this proposal, and also a feedback on what an appropriate target

for this KPI could be.

Environment

IATA could not find any information about the implementation of free route airspace in the

investment plans for the other NEFAB states. Avinor informed the attending parties about the plan

for implementing free route airspace in NEFAB and in the Danish/Swedish FAB. This is planned for

late 2015.

Cost efficiency

The Norwegian Air Traffic Controller Association said it should be taken into account that Norway is

not part of the EU-financing scheme. The airspace users were of the perception that no member

state should base the performance targets on an assumption that they will get a contribution from

the EU-financing scheme. The N-CAA supports the latter view.

Avinor has made some new traffic forecasts that will be presented to airspace users and the N-CAA

late March. A preliminary assessment suggest that this will result in a reduction of the DUC of 3,2 %

p.a. SAS asked what the level of elasticity would be in the scenario. This will be assessed by the N-

CAA once we have the figures.

SAS and IATA wanted a greater focus on the cost base of the service provider. The N-CAA pointed

out that if traffic increases costs will also necessarily increase. The N-CAA should however critically

assess the rate of the cost increase. In accordance with Avinor the cost base has increased by 19 %

from 2009 till 2014. In the same period traffic has increased by 47 %.

The Federation of Norwegian aviation industries (NHO Luftfart) wanted more information about the

synergies of the NEFAB cooperation. At present time there is only one NEFAB project planned, that

is free route airspace. NEFAB will enter into a dialog with the Danish/Swedish FAB to discuss further

cross-border cooperation. The gains of such a cooperation will however not be capitalized before

RP3.

NHO Luftfart was of the opinion that the local targets should be set at a level of ambition that forces

Avinor to implement major changes in their business model. NHO Luftfart said this was necessary in

order to make Avinor competitive in the long run. NHO Luftfart said major changes would not be

required if the current targets were upheld. The N-CAA set the targets in accordance with the

Performance Regulation. It’s beyond the scope of the N-CAA authority to impose further demands

on Avinor.

IATA wanted more information about the major cost drivers for 2013 and 2014. Avinor said the

increased costs were due to increased labour costs, and in particular increased pension costs. The

increase in pension costs could largely be explained by changes in IAS 19.

IATA encouraged the N-CAA to examine the starting point for RP2 once more. The N-CAA will do

another assessment of the starting point again once the actual cost figures for 2013 are available.

Both IATA and SAS said that the cost of capital was too high. The N-CAA will adjust the cost of

capital in accordance with Steer Davies Gleave’ s report on cost of capital and pension costs.

TNC-costs

It was explained why the TNC costs had increased in 2013 and 2014. This was due to investments

(SNAP, ATM-system) and the terminal 2 project on Gardermoen. Furthermore there is a new way of

calculating service units that entails that the service units will be reduced for 2015 even though

traffic increases.

The N-CAA encourages Avinor to send us the actual TNC-cost figures for 2013 as soon as possible.

Investments:

IATA wanted more information about the relationship between the planed and the initiated

projects in RP1, in order to make sure that the airspace users will not be charged for postponed

investments. Avinor would provide IATA with this information.

IATA wanted access to the business case for the new ATM-system. In accordance with Avinor this

has not yet been produced. A CBA should be finalized in 2015, and the airspace users will be

consulted in this process. The costs currently in the cost base are based on experience and

professional judgement.

IATA asked whether a ten year depreciation period for the new ATM-system was justifiable. Avinor

explained that the depreciation was set on the backdrop of past experience and national accounting

standards.

IATA wanted to know what would happen if the investment in a new ATM-system was postponed.

Avinor explained that the airspace users would only start paying for the investment once it is

capitalized. As the new ATM-system is outdated this has to be done in RP2.

IATA wanted further information about the general investment items: Surveillance, Navigation,

Communication, Buildings etc. Avinor said they would provide IATA with this information.

IATA wanted more information about the timeline for each investment: when will they be

capitalized and charged to the airspace users. Avinor said they would provide IATA with this

information.

Incentive scheme:

The N-CAA would like input from the stakeholders on what would be an appropriate incentive

scheme. The N-CAA said that the current proposal has to be adjusted.

SAS said a 1 % bonus/penalty seemed excessive.

Changes to the charging zones:

The Ministry of Transport and Communications informed the group about possible changes to the

charging zones. The Ministry of Transport and Communications are looking into the possibility of

making Gardermoen into one charging zone, and Bergen and Stavanger into a second charging

zone.

Other airports will still be subsidised through commercial income.

The plan is to implement the changes before the start of RP2. The Ministry of Transport and

Communications will consult stakeholders in the further process.

The Ministry of Transport and Communications said they would try to ensure that the user charges

for Bergen and Stavanger didn’t increase significantly from today’s level.

Main issues

Meeting #4

18





Safety

EoSM







RAT-methodology:



Capacity

En-route delay:















ATFM delay:










Environment




late 2015.

Cost efficiency

















RP3.






on Avinor.








TNC-costs




traffic increases.


Investments:










standards.








information.

Incentive scheme:








zone.






19

Actions agreed upon


Additional comments

Name of meeting National consultation / Estonia



Meeting #5





Safety

EoSM







RAT-methodology:



Capacity

En-route delay:















ATFM delay:










Environment




late 2015.

Cost efficiency

















RP3.






on Avinor.








TNC-costs




traffic increases.


Investments:










standards.








information.

Incentive scheme:








zone.






20

Level National

Stakeholders Airspace users - IATA, Lufthansa

Deadline for responses

Main issues

Summary of the National Consultation of 15th April 2014. In

this summary the main talking-points from the Consultation will be highlighted.

The explanations about the details of perormance plan was provided throughout the meeting.

While IATA understand the necessity to adjust Estonia’s cost base in order to reflect the upcoming

integration into Eurocontrol as well as required investments to comply with EU regulations, they

were concerned about the actual cost increase proposed by Estonia resulting in a 14% increase in

determined unit costs with the start of RP2. On average the costs are planned to increase yearly by

8.6% in real terms (2009 prices) with an average increase in determined unit cost of 5% p.a.

(comparing 2014D-2019D). IATA had concerns of cost of capital, investments,

starting cost base and development as well as SAR costs and they expect to see an improvement in

the proposed cost

development and determined unit costs for Estonia in RP2.

Actions agreed upon


Additional comments

Name of meeting National consultation /Latvia



Level National

Stakeholders IATA, MET

Deadline for responses 16.4.2014

Meeting #6

Main issues

The main topics covered were: 1) FY2013 outturn; 2) main financial ratios; 3) RP2 outlook; 4) risks

identified; 5) main macroeconomic issues; 6) financial performance during Jan-Feb 2014.

CAA and LGS opened the meeting. The presentation of the structure of the Air Traffic Management

functions was provided. Forecasted costs of the State were presented, which are deemed to

remain flat during the RP2 in nominal terms. Main underlying assumptions were presented.

Q from IATA: What is about FAB costs and benefits?

CAA: FAB costs are mainly travel costs. As to benefits – there are some projects ongoing that might

create benefits to airspace users in future, for example FRA.

Q from IATA: DUC for en-route ANS 2014 forecast is higher than 2013, will it go up in RP2?

CAA: It very much depends on external factors, situation with Russian Federation being one of the

biggest. The fact that Latvia has 4th lowest unit rate in Eurocontrol area (5th lowest, if Estonia is

considered), must be taken into account.

LGS: planning for the RP2 started very early and many things have changed since then. The biggest

change from the data provided in NEFAB meeting in Helsinki is the starting point of FY 2013 – since

the actual outturn was lower than expected and the costs for RP2 are calculated as a mix of

statistical drivers and precise calculations, it is implied that the costs for RP2 will be lower than

previously expected.

Q from IATA: There is a jump in staff costs in FY2017, is there something special planned?

LGS: No, however LGS is under constant pressure from trade unions.

Q from IATA: Is the estimation based on the same number of staff?

LGS: Basically yes, although there are some optimizations planned. IN FY 2013-FY2014 LGS carried

out some staff optimizations in Administrative department and financial unit. The main vision is less,

but more qualified staff. It must be considered that ATCO salaries are one of the lowest in EU and

lowest in NEFAB. Although there are no commitments done to trade unions, the salaries will be

raised in future years.

LGS informs about the problems that are encountered by LGS by negotiating the price with the MET

provider. LGS informs that there is a decision taken to provide MET forecasting services by LGS, LGS

is working on that. If MET provider could come up with a constructive proposal, LGS could

reconsider the decision. MET provider representative points out that he has no power to talk about

financial issues. Member of the Board, which has these powers fell ill and could not attend. LGS

reminds, that the above mentioned decision is currently not reflected and is not included neither in

the Performance plan, nor in the investment plans. The MET costs in reporting tables are costs

submitted by MET provider.

IATA would like to see this already be input in PP. If there is a decrease, the airspace users could not

benefit from that as the PP could be already approved by the time, the benefits are announced. DT

points out those political decisions may or may not be taken in the last minute. IATA is ready to

assist by writing to the appropriate authorities on this matter. The contacts must be provided by

LGS.

21

Actions agreed upon MET service costs need further clarification

Points of disagreement and reasons No points of disagreement identified

Additional comments

Main issues

The main topics covered were: 1) FY2013 outturn; 2) main financial ratios; 3) RP2 outlook; 4) risks

identified; 5) main macroeconomic issues; 6) financial performance during Jan-Feb 2014.

CAA and LGS opened the meeting. The presentation of the structure of the Air Traffic Management

functions was provided. Forecasted costs of the State were presented, which are deemed to

remain flat during the RP2 in nominal terms. Main underlying assumptions were presented.

Q from IATA: What is about FAB costs and benefits?

CAA: FAB costs are mainly travel costs. As to benefits – there are some projects ongoing that might

create benefits to airspace users in future, for example FRA.

Q from IATA: DUC for en-route ANS 2014 forecast is higher than 2013, will it go up in RP2?

CAA: It very much depends on external factors, situation with Russian Federation being one of the

biggest. The fact that Latvia has 4th lowest unit rate in Eurocontrol area (5th lowest, if Estonia is

considered), must be taken into account.

LGS: planning for the RP2 started very early and many things have changed since then. The biggest

change from the data provided in NEFAB meeting in Helsinki is the starting point of FY 2013 – since

the actual outturn was lower than expected and the costs for RP2 are calculated as a mix of

statistical drivers and precise calculations, it is implied that the costs for RP2 will be lower than

previously expected.

Q from IATA: There is a jump in staff costs in FY2017, is there something special planned?

LGS: No, however LGS is under constant pressure from trade unions.

Q from IATA: Is the estimation based on the same number of staff?

LGS: Basically yes, although there are some optimizations planned. IN FY 2013-FY2014 LGS carried

out some staff optimizations in Administrative department and financial unit. The main vision is less,

but more qualified staff. It must be considered that ATCO salaries are one of the lowest in EU and

lowest in NEFAB. Although there are no commitments done to trade unions, the salaries will be

raised in future years.

LGS informs about the problems that are encountered by LGS by negotiating the price with the MET

provider. LGS informs that there is a decision taken to provide MET forecasting services by LGS, LGS

is working on that. If MET provider could come up with a constructive proposal, LGS could

reconsider the decision. MET provider representative points out that he has no power to talk about

financial issues. Member of the Board, which has these powers fell ill and could not attend. LGS

reminds, that the above mentioned decision is currently not reflected and is not included neither in

the Performance plan, nor in the investment plans. The MET costs in reporting tables are costs

submitted by MET provider.

IATA would like to see this already be input in PP. If there is a decrease, the airspace users could not

benefit from that as the PP could be already approved by the time, the benefits are announced. DT

points out those political decisions may or may not be taken in the last minute. IATA is ready to

assist by writing to the appropriate authorities on this matter. The contacts must be provided by

LGS.

22

Number of Actions

<EANS, OLDI upgrade: floating COPs> 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Planned date of entry into operationNovember

Description

Reference to NSP and evidence of

compliance

Contribution to reaching the performance

targets

Additional comments

<EANS,TOPSKY upgrade> 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


Description


compliance


targets

Additional comments

<EANS, Airspace design for FRA> 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


Description


compliance


targets

Additional comments

<EANS,Airspace design for FRA> 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


Description


compliance


targets

Additional comments

<LGS, Airspace design for FRA> 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


Description


compliance


targets

Validating the predicted traffic flows in FRA environment, ARES re-design to meet the needs of the

predicted traffic flows, Real Time Simulations to validate the planned changes in airspace and controller

working procedures.

Validating the predicted traffic flows in FRA environment, ARES re-design to meet the needs of the

predicted traffic flows, Real Time Simulations to validate the planned changes in airspace and controller

working procedures

Validation of the predicted traffic flows in FRA environment, real time simulations to validate the

planned changes in the airspace design and in the air traffic controller working procedures.

1.4 - Actions to implement the Network Strategy Plan at FAB level, and other guiding principles for the

operation of the FAB in the long-term perspective

9

TOPSKY support for floating COPs- receiving the estimate on floating COP, calculating the predicted

trajectory of traffic, upgrade the trajectory of re-routed traffic, etc.

Interchange of OLDI data with NEFAB states using floating COPs instead of fixed COPs

23

Additional comments

<Avinor> 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


Description


compliance


targets

Additional comments

<FINAVIA, OLDI upgrade: floating COPs> 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


Description


compliance


targets

Additional comments

<FINAVIA,TOPSKY upgrade> 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


Description


compliance


targets

Additional comments

<FINAVIA> 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


Description


compliance


targets

Additional comments

Implementation of FRA airspace design in 2014. FRA OPS real time validations Q2 and Q4 2014.

Implementation of intermediate points for circumnavigating TSAs according to Network Manager FBZ

concept as mentioned in ERNIP plan.

Validating the predicted traffic flows in FRA environment, Real Time Simulations to validate the planned

changes in airspace and controller working procedures.

Capacity, Throughput – balance of demand and capacity and increased capacity.

Environment – Reduce environmental impact of each flight

Cost-efficency – Increase ATCO productivity and reduce technology costs per flight.

Safety – reduce risk per flight hour

Interchange of OLDI data with NEFAB states using floating COPs instead of fixed COPs

TOPSKY support for floating COPs- receiving the estimate on floating COP, calculating the predicted

trajectory of traffic, upgrade the trajectory of re-routed traffic, etc.

24

Number of airports

2011 2012 2013 Average

EETN LENNART MERI TALLINN Estonia 36 321 45 238 34 456 38 672

EETU TARTU Estonia 1 567 1 613 1 111 1 430

EFHK HELSINKI-VANTAA Finland 192 255 172 005 168 097 177 452

ENBR BERGEN/FLESLAND Norway 96 180 96 985 99 911 97 692

ENGM OSLO/GARDERMOEN Norway 228 572 235 545 241 058 235 058

ENVA TRONDHEIM/VAERNES Norway 53 661 56 653 56 449 55 588

ENZV STAVANGER/SOLA Norway 71 045 75 625 78 913 75 194

EVLA LIEPAJA Latvia 36 18 45 33

EVRA RIGA Latvia 71 547 68 360 67 237 69 048

EVVA VENTSPILS Latvia 21 20 4 15

Additional comments

1.5 - List of airports for RP2

List of airports exempted from the Performance and Charging Regulations

List of airports submitted to the Performance and Charging Regulations

ICAO code Airport name State

IFR air transport movements

10

Latvia: EVLA and EVVA

25

SECTION 2: INVESTMENTS

RT ref. AI ref.


Regulation


Annex C




2. INVESTMENT 2 Annex D

2.1. Description and justification of the cost, nature

and contribution to achieving the performance

targets of investments in new ATM systems and

major overhauls of existing ATM systems, including

their relevance and coherence with the European

ATM Master Plan, the common projects referred to in

Article 15a of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004, and, as

appropriate, the Network Strategy Plan.

2.2. The description and justification referred to in

point 2.1 shall in particular:

(i) relate the amount of the investments, for which

description and justification is given following point

2.1, to the total amount of investments;

(i i) differentiate between investments in new

systems, overhaul of existing systems and

replacement investments;

(i i i) refer each investment in new ATM systems and

major overhaul of existing ATM systems to the

European ATM Master Plan, the common projects

referred to in Article 15a of Regulation (EC) No

550/2004, and, as appropriate, the Network Strategy

Plan;

(iv) detail the synergies achieved at functional

airspace block level or, if appropriate, with other

Member States or functional airspace blocks, in

particular in terms of common infrastructure and

common procurement;

(v) detail the benefits expected from these

investments in terms of performance across the four

key performance areas, allocating them between the

en route and terminal/airport phases of fl ight, and

the date as from which benefits are expected;

(vi) provide information on the decision-making

process underpinning the investment, such as the

existence of a documented cost-benefit analysis, the

holding of user consultation, its results and any

dissenting views expressed.

26

NEFAB

Avinor

Number of capex

Name of capex 1

Description

Accountable entity

Differentiation New system

Replacement investment Yes

Common project No

Other investment (in line with Yes

Joint investment No

Synergies achieved at FAB level or other

MSYes

Consultation with stakeholders Yes

Decision-making process Yes

KPA ImpactDate of expected

benefits

Safety Yes 29.5.2014

Environment Yes 29.5.2014

Capacity Yes 29.5.2014

Cost efficiency Yes 29.5.2014

Name of capex 2

Description

Accountable entity

2 - INVESTMENTS

Number of ANSPs

En-route

En-route

Area

<En-route/ Terminal/ Airport/ Phases Expected benefits per KPA

BOAS enables safety improvements through CPDLC and ADS-C

BOAS will enable more efficient horisontal routings and more optimum

cruising levels, contributing to increased flight efficiency.

BOAS system is capable to handle estimated traffic volumes up to 2030.

BOAS embeds the following possibilities after the implementing period and

SAT (Site Acceptance Test):

FS 106 Natcon Target concept implementation

NATCON South Norway extends life of current NATCON-system, including reduction of maintenance. Data Link is commission regulation. Free route is to

provide airspace to operators.

Avinor AS

Justification of the cost, nature and contribution

13

4


FS 212 BOAS

Ensure service provision in accordance with ICAO requirements in Oceanic airspace.

Avinor AS

Bodø Oceanic is highly integrated with the operation of the continental airspace over Norway. Bodø Oceanic is to a large extent operated

OLDI conections with Iceland will be established which reduces the possibilities for coordination errors.

Decided by the Avinor Management board

En-route

En-route

27

DifferentiationOverhaul of

existing system

Replacement investment Click to select

Common project No

Other investment (in line with Click to select

Joint investment No


MSYes




benefits

Safety Yes

1.1.2018

Environment Yes

1.1.2018

Capacity Yes

1.1.2018

This investment project an Avinor project as such, but one of the workstreems has the aim to create Free Route Airpace across NEFAB and

the SE/DK FAB

The final decision will be made by the Avinor Board after consultation with our customers.

Expected benefits per KPAArea

<En-route/ Terminal/ Airport/ Phases

1. Free Route implementing NEFAB target concept

2. Data Link: Standard and unambiguous messages (entailing significant error

and fatigue reduction), the provision of a communications back up and the

possibility of immediate messages retrieval, data link communications are a

major safety enhancement.

3. NATCON South Norway will obtain sophisticated STCA-functionality (Short

Term Conflict Alert) for Stavanger ACC

En-route/Terminal

No environmental targets has been set for the project.

1. Free Route: reduced emissions

2. Data Link: N/A

3. NATCON South Norway: N/A

En-route/Terminal

1. Free Route:

2. Data link increase capacity through both reduction of voice congestion and

increase in ATCO efficiency. Capacity gain is expected from 3,4% (if 25% of

flights is equipped) up to 11 % (if 75% of flights is equipped)

3. NATCON South Norway

3.1. Increased capacity in both Stavanger and Oslo AoR through one single

FDPS, and electronic transfer of control, between Stavanger and Oslo.

3.2. The target is to enhance capacity in Oslo sectors no. 5, no. 6 and no. 8

3.3. The target is to enhance capacity in Stavanger sectors North and South.

(SN1 SN2 SN3 if the new SNAP airspace configuration).

3.4. Cost / effectiveness of these actions are not included in the cost/benefit

analyse.

En-route/Terminal

28

Cost efficiency Yes

1.1.2018

Name of capex 3

Description

Accountable entity


existing system


Common project Yes


Joint investment No


MSYes




benefits

1. Free Route: Operators will achieve more flexible route planning.

2. Data Link: Data link is a cost-effective capacity enabler for sector

productivity. ANSPs savings derived from staff cost avoidance. Reduction of

delays.

3. NATCON South Norway Reducing technical platform to 1 platform.

Standardising functionality (development, tests, training )ATCO and tech

personnel) and maintenance)

Staff efficiency is calculated to reduce cost Apr.. with 8,3 MNOK.

Reduced investment cost to enable NEFAB operational concept and data link

estimated at 26,4 MNOK.

Enhanced potential related to reduction from 2 FDS (flight data section) to 1

joint FDS for Oslo and Stavanger.

En-route/Terminal

FS 108 New ATM infrastructure

Replacement of current ATM technology in order to safeguard SES and FAB interoperability including adjourning FABs and European Joint Venture regarding

centralized services.

Avinor AS





29

Safety Yes

1.1.2019

Environment Yes

1.1.2019

Capacity Yes

1.1.2019

Cost efficiency Yes

1.1.2019

Name of capex 4

Description

Accountable entity

FAS ACC: SESAR Key Features #5 and #6

No Validation Targets on European level developed. Avinor has no

quantitative targets for FAS ACC yet.

- FAS ACC will implement the SESAR solutions regarding safety effects, e.g.

Enhanced STCA, Approach Procedure Vertical Guidance, Enhanced Situational

Awareness(embedded in operational concept for STEP 1.

FAS TWR: No Validation Targets on European level developed.

- reduce risk pr flight hour

En-route/Terminal/Airport

FAS ACC:

- SESAR Key Feature #1 and #2: VT 2,8% reduction in fuel consumption pr

flight

- performance STEP 1: 46% of VT equivalent to 1,3%

- implementation of decision tools as MTCD

FAS TWR:

- 2,8% reduced fuel burn pr flight

- reduce environmental impact og each flight


FAS ACC:

- SESAR Key Feature #1,#2 and #6: VT 27% increased flow capacity

- performance STEP 1: 20% of VT (en-route), equivalent 5,4%

FAS TWR

- 14% runway throughput

- throughput - balance of demand and capacity

- increased capacity - improved quality of service


FAS ACC:

- SESAR Key Feature #1,#3 and #6: VT 6,1% cost reduction pr flight

- performance STEP 1: 25% of VT, equivalent 1,5%

- due to e.g. dynamic sectorisation and new decision making tools

FAS TWR:

- 6,8% AN cost pr flight

- increase ATCO productivity

- reduce technology costs pr flight


FS 201 Haukåsen Radar-Upgrade

Technology change, from PSR/MSSR to double MSSR site

Avinor AS


30



Common project No


Joint investment No


MSNo




benefits

Safety Yes

1.1.2014

Environment Yes1.1.2014

Capacity Yes1.1.2014

Cost efficiency Yes

1.1.2014

Name of capex 5

Description

Accountable entity


existing system


Common project No

The decision has been made by the Avinor Board after consultation with our customers.



Existing radar (combined PSR/MSSR) has reached end of life.

Replacing this with a new MSSR is an effective solution.

The decommissioning of the PSR-radar has been discusses with Military and

customers.

NOTE: NORWAM

En-route/Terminal

N/A

N/A

Replacement of technology. No change regarding costs. MSSR technology is

less expensive than PSR technology regarding power consumption.

En-route/Terminal

FS 204 Norwegian Wide Area Multilateration (NORWAM)

Linked to Commission Regulation (EC) 1207/2011 - performance and the interoperability of surveillance.

Technology change, enables surveillance coverage in non-radar airspace

Avinor AS


31

Other investment (in line with

interoperability Regulations, the IDP,

Master Plan essentials or the NSP)

Click to select

Joint investment No


MSNo




benefits

Safety Yes

1.1.2015

Environment Yes

1.1.2017

Capacity Yes

1.1.2018

Cost efficiency Yes

1.1.2019

Name of capex 6

Description

Accountable entity






1. Fulfil requirement in SPI-IR regarding Surveillance for ANSP.

2. Increased surveillance in areas with lack of surveillance capability today, e.g.

Sogn TMA, Svalbard corridor, and some offshore-areas.

En-route/Terminal

1. NORWAM will not affect the environment directly

2. Improved surveillance will contribute to more efficient flight profiles, both

regarding environmental challenges (direct routing, lower fuel consumption

with lower COs emissions, reduce of notice) and the operators capacity and

economy.

En-route/Terminal

1. The NORWAM project will support current and future requirements to

Surveillance regarding 2,5/3/5 NM separation.

2. Operational criteria regarding separation will offer the customers more

airspace capacity.

En-route/Terminal

1. WAM technology will reduce costs for surveillance for Norwegian airspace

over lifecycle of 15 years with up to 600 MNOK compared with "as is"

technology.

2. The new technology will reduce cost regarding investment. Operational cost

will be reduced compared to MSSR.

En-route/Terminal

FS 702 New Operational Concept

An approved Operational Concept for TWR/TMA and ACC operations, according to STEP1 of European ATM Master Plan.

Avinor AS


32

Common project No


Joint investment No


MSNo




benefits

Safety Yes

Environment Yes

Capacity Yes

Cost efficiency Yes

Name of capex 7

Description

Accountable entity


existing system


Common project No




Click to select

Joint investment No


MSNo



Area






FS 100 ATM-Systems General

Updates in accordance by SES and national regulations, customer needs, SES and FAB interoperability adaptation and "life time cycle" for Avinor, Military and

private airports.

Avinor AS



Expected benefits per KPA

NEFAB Target Concept shall be adapted. Norwegian practices and interpretations of the ICAO documents, including BSL G shall be

included.

33


benefits

Safety Yes

Environment Yes

Capacity Yes

Cost efficiency Yes

Name of capex 8

Description

Accountable entity


existing system


Common project No




Click to select

Joint investment No


MSNo




benefits

Safety Yes

Environment Yes

Capacity Yes

Cost efficiency Yes


Expected benefits per KPA

FS 200 Surveillance General


private airports.

Avinor AS

Area









En-route/Terminal

En-route/Terminal

En-route/Terminal

En-route/Terminal

34

Name of capex 9

Description

Accountable entity


existing system


Common project No


Joint investment No


MSNo


Decision-making process Click to select


benefits

Safety Yes

Environment Yes

Capacity Yes

Cost efficiency Yes

Name of capex 10

Description

Accountable entity


existing system


Common project No







FS 400 Communication General


private airports.

Avinor AS



FS 300 Navigation General


private airports.

Avinor AS


35

Joint investment No


MSNo




benefits

Safety Yes

Environment No

Capacity Yes

Cost efficiency No

Name of capex 11

Description

Accountable entity



Common project No




Click to select

Joint investment No


MSYes




benefits



En-route/Terminal

En-route/Terminal

FS 500 MET General


private airports.

Avinor AS




36

Safety Yes

Environment No

Capacity No

Cost efficiency Yes

Name of capex 12

Description

Accountable entity


existing system


Common project No




Click to select

Joint investment No


MSNo




benefits

ADQ: enhance static and dynamic data regarding "one point / one database".

Facilitate the NOTAM process when immediate needs occurs, by using

electronic NOTAM software.

AIM/Panda:

EAIP:

ADQ: joint system for static data and dynamic data, reducing the no of as is

system (reducing documentation, training,) facilitate new work processes

witch will enhance capacity ( and in fact reduce staff), reduce time to product

to the customers, facilitate electronic NOTAM (reduce timelines). Simplify as is

manually operations and control of data transfer between software used.

Reduce the need of as is software.

FS 701 Mobility General

Maintenance of ANS installations on Norwegian territory (Inc. Islands in both Atlantic- and Barent seas) according to customer specifications.

Avinor AS




37

Safety Yes

Environment No

Capacity No

Cost efficiency No

Name of capex 13

Description

Accountable entity


existing system


Common project No




Click to select

Joint investment No


MSNo




benefits

Safety No

Environment No

Capacity No

Cost efficiency No

FS 700 Buildings General

Maintenance of property (buildings as installations) of ATM and ANS/SUR equipment in Norwegian territory (Inc. islands in both Atlantic and Barent seas),

were Avinor supplies service, technical upgrade of installations and is responsible for regulations (security, environment, fire etc.)

Avinor AS




38

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

FS 212 BOAS 3 700 000 3 700 000 - - - - 10 100/0 2014

FS 106 Natcon Target concept

implementation 110 528 000 72 720 000 37 808 000 - - - 15 72,5/27,5 2016

FS 108 New ATM infrastructure 551 000 000 100 000 000 100 000 000 144 000 000 90 000 000 117 000 000 10 50/50 2017/2020

FS 201 Haukåsen Radar-Upgrade 7 370 000 7 370 000 - - - - 20 65/35 2015

FS 204 Norwegian Wide Area

Multilateration (NORWAM) 177 800 000 57 800 000 40 000 000 40 000 000 40 000 000 - 15 65/35 2018

FS 702 New Operational Concept 10 000 000 10 000 000 - - - - 10 100/0 2015

FS 100 ATM-Systems General 46 500 000 19 700 000 16 200 000 -1 800 000 8 200 000 4 200 000 10 30/70 Yearly

FS 200 Surveillance General 52 000 000 1 000 000 1 000 000 19 000 000 24 000 000 7 000 000 10 65/35 Yearly

FS 300 Navigation General 18 000 000 5 000 000 5 000 000 5 000 000 2 000 000 1 000 000 10 65/35 Yearly

FS 400 Communication General 102 400 000 20 000 000 18 600 000 22 600 000 22 600 000 18 600 000 10 50/50 Yearly

FS 500 MET General 7 500 000 1 500 000 1 500 000 1 500 000 1 500 000 1 500 000 10 0/100 Yearly

FS 701 Mobility General 8 750 000 1 750 000 1 750 000 1 750 000 1 750 000 1 750 000 10 37,5/62,5 Yearly

FS 700 Buildings General 17 000 000 3 500 000 3 500 000 3 500 000 3 500 000 3 000 000 10 0/100 Yearly

Sub-total of main capex above (1) 1 112 548 000 304 040 000 225 358 000 235 550 000 193 550 000 154 050 000

Sub-total other Capex (2)

Total capex (1) + (2) 1 112 548 000 304 040 000 225 358 000 235 550 000 193 550 000 154 050 000

EANS

Number of capex

Name of capex 1

Description

Accountable entity


existing system


Common project No




Yes

Following main communication areas are covered: G-G voice upgrade with St-Petersburg ATCC, implementation of DTIS and DLC messages for Tallinn Airport,

inplementation of AMHS system, transition from TDM based communication to IP based corporate network and its integration with PENS, introduction of VoIP

technology.

EANS

Communication

Name of investment Total CAPEX for the project


6

ESSIP:

VoIP ref COM-11

AMHS ref COM-10

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1079/2012 of 16 November 2012 laying down requirements for voice channels spacing for the single

Planned Amount of Capital Expenditures (NOK)Lifecycle

(Amortisation

period in years)

Allocation en

route / terminal

ANS (%)

Planned date of

entry into

operation (IOC /

FOC dates)

Additional comments

39

Joint investment No


MSYes




benefits

Safety Click to select

2019

Environment Click to select

Capacity Click to select

Cost efficiency Click to select

Name of capex 2

Description

Accountable entity



Common project Yes




Yes

Joint investment No


MSYes

NEFAB Airspace 2015 concept

ESSIP Objective NAV-03 and NAV-10 to ensure sufficient DME-DME coverage to implement P-RNAV and APV-procedures

DME-DME coverage has direct link with European ATM Master plan - OFA 02.01.01 - Optimised RNP Structures

PBN Plan.



New Com technology has indirect affect on safety, but is enabler of safety

related data processing.

LAN technology allows to build up flexible redundancy.

Replacement of depreciated equipment has main safety aspect

En-route/Terminal

Decreased need for the radio frequences En-route/Terminal

A/G DL increase capacity of radiospectrum, which is one enabler of sector

capacity streching

WAM infrastructure increase capacity and speed of the data exchange

En-route/Terminal/Airport 2019

VoIP allows more efficient use of network recourses

Maintenance of WAM based communication is more efficient.

En-route/Terminal

Navigation

Following main navigation areas are covered: renewal of R-NAV DME ground infrastructure, SBAS/APV procedures for airports, CCO procedures for Tallinn

Airport, NEFAB Airspace principles adapdation

EANS


Exept DME replacement

The decision has been made by the EANS Supervisory Board.

40




benefits

Safety Click to select

2019

Environment Click to select

Capacity Click to select

Cost efficiency Click to select

Name of capex 3

Description

Accountable entity


Replacement investment No

Common project Yes




Yes

Joint investment Click to select


MSYes



Surveillance

Following main navigation areas are covered: expansion of Tallinn Airport SMR-MLAT infrastructure, exchange of surveillance data, installation of Tallinn FIR

WAM system

EANS


Exchange of surveillance data.

NEFAB Airspace 2015

Comission Implementation Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011 of 22 November 2011 laying down requirements for the performance and the

interoperability of surveillance for the single European sky

Comission Implementation Regulation (EC) No 262/2009 of 30 March 2009 laying down requirements for the coordinated allocation and





Indirect affect on safety, enabler of new airspace design and route design,

which have the affect on increase on safety.

Replacement of depreciated equipment has main safety aspect.

En-route/Terminal

New Nav technology based airspace and route design will contribute to

reduced CO2 emissions and noise reduction.

En-route/Terminal

Indirect affect on capacity, mostly enabler of new airspace design and route

design.

En-route/Terminal

GNSS based navigation requires less ground-based equipment, maintenance

cost and required investments will have substantial decrease of financial

recourses.

Terminal

41


benefits

Safety Yes

2019

Environment No

Capacity No

Cost efficiency Yes

Name of capex 4

Description

Accountable entity


existing system


Common project Yes




Yes

Joint investment Yes


MSYes




benefits




Required maintenance cost and investments into new sur technology will lead

to substantial decrease of financial recourses.

En-route/Terminal

Data processing

Following main functionalities by ATM systems are covered: cross-boarder operations, FRA, FUA, data recording/storage, CPDLC, messages exchange with

CFMU, Tallinn Airport operations, FASTI tools, software environment for management processes.

EANS


Regulation (EC) No 552/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 on the interoperability of the European Air

Traffic Management network (the interoperability Regulation)

ESSIP Objectives:

ATC 02.5/ATC 02.6/ATC 02.7 - APW/MSAW/APM - system upgrade enables implementation of these safety nets.



New Sur technology allows aquisition of more data about airspace situation.

New technology has higher precion and update rate of surveillance data,

therefore the safety nets works better.

Replacement of depreciated equipment has main safety aspect


42

Safety Yes

2019

Environment Yes

Capacity Yes

Cost efficiency No

Name of capex 5

Description

Accountable entity



Common project No




Yes

Joint investment No


MSNo




benefits

Safety Yes

2019

Commission Regiulation No 73/2010 laying down requirements on the quality of aeronautical data and aeronautical information for the

single European sky




Improved quality of aeronautical data in use.

Audited aeronautical data enables better planning of air traffic and decrease

misunderstandings in communication.


Improved safety nets contribute to reduction of incidents.

Planning tools allow smooth traffic on controlled airspace and airport runway.

Replacement of depreciated equipment has main safety aspect.


Enabler of airspace and route design, which will contribute to reduced CO2

emissions and noise reduction.

Freeroute technology allows shorten the routes and less fuel consumption


Planning tools and data exchange contributes to the sector capacity increase,

free route airspace technology and usage of cross-border sectorisation during

low traccic period.

En-route/Terminal

No direct impact.

Makes possible to reduce navigation fees in shared sectors.

En-route/Terminal

AIS

Ensuring automated processing of aeronautical data and enabling the high quality and on-time distribution of the data.

EANS


43

Environment No

Capacity Yes

Cost efficiency No

Name of capex 6

Description

Accountable entity


existing system


Common project No




No

Joint investment No


MSNo




benefits

Safety Yes

2019

Environment No

Capacity No

Cost efficiency YesDecrease cost of maintenance.

Infrastructure

Covers maintenance of property (buildings and installations) of CNS-ATM equipment and ANS operations, technical upgrade of installations for meeting

security, environment, fire etc. Regulations

EANS





Expansion of power and communication network increase the availability of

infrastructure


Planning tools and data exchange contributes to the sector load planning and

sector capacity increase.


Indirect impact.

Co-operation in processing and distributing aeronautical data enables

decrease maintenance cost and required investments.


44

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Communication 1 461 000 472 000 266 000 332 000 404 000 270 000 various various various

Navigation 1 424 000 64 000 496 000 232 000 167 000 67 000 various various various

Surveillance 1 469 000 1 205 000 32 000 32 000 180 000 180 000 various various various

Data processing 7 965 000 2 648 000 937 000 1 155 000 1 484 000 1 178 000 various various various

AIS 392 000 368 000 64 000 120 000 120 000 450 000 various various various

Infrastructure 2 320 000 237 000 933 000 350 000 various various various

Sub-total of main capex above (1) 15 031 000 4 994 000 2 728 000 2 221 000 2 355 000 2 145 000


Total capex (1) + (2) 15 031 000 4 994 000 2 728 000 2 221 000 2 355 000 2 145 000

Finavia

Number of capex

Name of capex 1

Description

Accountable entity



Common project No




Yes

Joint investment No


MSNo

Consultation with stakeholders No



benefits

Safety Yes1.1.2016

Additional comments

8

WAM / ADS-B

Technology change, from MSSR to Wide Area Multilateration

ANSP


Allocation en

route / terminal

ANS (%)

Planned date of

entry into

operation (IOC /

FOC dates)

ANSP internal



Fulfil requirement in SPI-IR regarding Surveillance for ANSP En-route

Name of investment Total CAPEX for the projectPlanned Amount of Capital Expenditures (€)

Lifecycle

(Amortisation

period in years)

Linked to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011 - performance and the interoperability of surveillance, and to the

National NAV/SUR-strategy (puplished by Aviation authority of Finland).

45

Environment Yes

1.1.2016

Capacity Yes

1.1.2016

Cost efficiency Yes

1.1.2016

Name of capex 2

Description

Accountable entity


existing system


Common project No




Yes

Joint investment No


MSNo




benefits

Safety Yes

1.1.2021

Environment No

Capacity No

Cost efficiency Yes1.1.2021

Inproved surveillance will contribute to more efficient flight profiles, both

regarding environmental challenges and the operators capacity and economy.

En-route

WAM will support current and future requirements to Surveillance En-route

WAM technology will reduce costs for surveillance. Operational cost will be

reduced compared to MSSR.

En-route

MSSR -renewal to EFHK, EFRO, EFTP, EFKU and EFJY

Replacing existing radars with new MSSRs

ANSP


Linked to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011 - performance and the interoperability of surveillance, and to the

National NAV/SUR-strategy (puplished by Aviation authority of Finland).

ANSP internal



Existing radars have reached end of life. Replacing these with a new MSSR is

an effective solution. Increase safety with better performance.

En-route

Replacement of technology reduce maintenance costs. En-route

46

Name of capex 3

Description

Accountable entity


existing system


Common project No




Yes

Joint investment No


MSNo




benefits

Safety Yes

1.1.2023

Environment No

Capacity No


Name of capex 4

Description

Accountable entity



Common project Yes

ILS / DME renewal

Replacing existing instrumental landing systems with new ILS/DMEs

ANSP


Linked to the National NAV/SUR-strategy (puplished by Aviation authority of Finland).

ANSP internal



Terminal

Replacement of technology reduce maintenance costs. Terminal

Controller Pilot Datalink'

Technology change, from radio voice communication to datalink connection

Existing instrumental landing systems have reached end of life. Replacing

these with a new ILS/DME is an effective solution. Increase safety with better

performance.

NEFAB


47




Yes



MSYes




benefits

Safety Yes1.1.2020

Environment No



Name of capex 5

Description

Accountable entity


existing system


Common project No




Yes

Joint investment No


MSNo




benefits

Increase ATC capasity replacing voice communication En-route

Directly linked as Deployment Baseline to Key Feature "Moving from Airpspace to 4D Trajectory Management"

Common with NEFAB



Increase safety replacing voice communication with textual messages En-route

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1265/2007 of 26 October 2007

laying down requirements on air-ground voice channel spacing for the single European sky

ANSP internal



COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 29/2009

of 16 January 2009 laying down requirements on data link services for the single European sky

Replacement of technology reduce maintenance costs. En-route

VHF -radiostations (8,33 kHz channel spacing) > FL195

Replacing existing VHF radiostations with new equipments

ANSP


48

Safety Yes1.1.2018

Environment No


Cost efficiency No

Name of capex 6

Description

Accountable entity



Common project No




No

Joint investment No


MSNo




benefits

Safety No


Capacity No


Name of capex 7

Description

Accountable entity

Enable centralized ATCC service which increase efficiency 50%R-50%T

Ultimate Fallback Survellance Display Systems

Increase the operative redundance with separative fallback radar display system

ANSP

En-route

Enable more radio frequencies on upper airspace En-route

Helsinki ACC -project

Centralized ATCC service for EFHK

ANSP


No direct link with SES Interoperability, Network or Common Projects

Increase safety with additional capacity of radio connections

ANSP internal



Increased efficiency decrease amout of airpollution 50%R-50%T

49



Common project No




No

Joint investment No


MSNo




benefits

Safety Yes1.1.2017

Environment No

Capacity No

Cost efficiency No

Name of capex 8

Description

Accountable entity


existing system


Common project Yes




Yes


No direct link with the European ATM Master plan, but the project enables technology change from conventional radar display systems to

more economical surveillance technology.

Increase the operative redundance with separative fallback radar display

system

Linked to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1207/2011 - performance and the interoperability of surveillance.

FRA implementation

Free route airspace implemantion

NEFAB


ANSP internal



En-route


50


MSYes




benefits

Safety No


Capacity No


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Controller pilot Datalink 5 000 000 1 000 000 1 000 000 1 000 000 1 000 000 1 000 000 as service 100/0 2015

Wide Area Multilateration (country wide) 2 000 000 2 000 000 15 100/0 2015

VHF-radiostations (8,33 kHz-channel

spacing) > FL1954 500 000 2 000 000 1 500 000 1 000 000 15 100/0 2018

Helsinki ACC-project 300 000 300 000 20 100/0 2015

Ultimate Fallback Survellance Display

Systems 600 000 400 000 200 000 10 100/0 2016

FRA implementation 2 000 000 2 000 000 10 100/0 2015

MSSR -renewal to EFHK, EFRO, EFTP, EFKU

and EFJY6 800 000 1 700 000 1 700 000 1 700 000 1 700 000 15 100/0 2020

FRA implementation


Sub-total other Capex (2) 12 600 000 2 600 000 3 000 000 3 000 000 2 000 000 2 000 000

Total capex (1) + (2) 33 800 000 12 000 000 7 400 000 5 000 000 4 700 000 4 700 000

LGS

Number of capex

Name of capex 1

Description

Common with NEFAB



Enable direct flight routes which decrease amount of airpollution En-route

Enable direct flight routes for the operators which decrease costs per mile.

Directly linked as Step 1 (Time based operations) in Key Feature "Moving from Airspace to 4D Trajectory Mangement"

En-route

Planned Amount of Capital Expenditures (€)Lifecycle

(Amortisation

period in years)

Allocation en

route / terminal

ANS (%)

Planned date of

entry into

operation (IOC /

FOC dates)

Additional comments

4

PBN implementation project

Analysis of the existing airspace structure of Riga FIR, development, validation and implementation of PBN air space elements and procedures.

Name of investment Total CAPEX for the project

51

Accountable entity


existing system


Common project No




Yes

Joint investment No


MSNo




benefits

Safety Yes

November 2016

Environment Yes

November 2016

Capacity Yes

November 2016

Cost efficiency Yes

November 2016

Name of capex 2

Description

LGS


Replacement

NAV03, NAV10, AOM-0601, AOM-0602-A, AOM-0602-B, WP6.1, WP6.3, WP7.1

The decision has been made by the LGS Board after consultation with our customers

The decision has been made by the LGS Board after consultation with our customers



1. Reduce the number of incidents related to airspace design and volume. 2.

Reducing known interface interference challenges in specific areas segregate

air routes and de-conflict SID/STAR. 3. Improve the safety level compared to a

2008 baseline.

1. New airspace and route design will contribute to reduced CO2 emissions

and noise reduction. 2. The target is 5% reduction per flight

1. It will enable an increase in airspace capacity and standardize and

streamline service provision. 2. Enable increased traffic volume without

corresponding staff increase. This enables an increase of revenues and

reduction of unit rates. 3. The airports will be given incentives for growth and

an increase of revenues

Communication General

Implementation of ENHANCE AMHS Capability

1. Airspace design will enable a traffic increase compared to 2013. 2. This will

be adapted with implementing new GNSS technology. The target is reduced

flight time in TMA.

52

Accountable entity


existing system


Common project No




No

Joint investment No


MSNo




benefits

Safety Yes

December 2018

Environment Yes

December 2018

Capacity Yes

Cost efficiency Yes

December 2018

Name of capex 3

Description

Accountable entity


existing system



Replacement

LGS


Upgrade

The final decision will be made by the LGS Board after consultation with our customers

The final decision will be made by the LGS Board after consultation with our customers



Project under establishment. Benefits resulting from the application of a

harmonised set of safety requirements.

Project under establishment. Reduction of power consumption and heating

emission.

Project under establishment

Project under establishment. Use of de-facto COTS messaging systems will

reduce the cost of messaging services and support any kind of message

format including the exchange of new binary data.

A-SMGCS modernization

A-SMGCS modernization with „Follow-the-green” concept

LGS

53

Common project No




Yes

Joint investment No


MSNo




benefits

Safety Yes

November 2017

Environment Yes

November 2017

Capacity Yes

November 2017

Cost efficiency Yes

November 2017

Name of capex 4

Description

Accountable entity


existing system


AOP05, AO-0501, AO-0601, AO-0602, AO-0603, DCB-0301, DCB-0302

The decision has been made by the LGS Board after consultation with our customers.




1. Reduce the number of incidents related to RWY incursions. 2. Establishment

of integrated system providing ATCOs with the information to perform control

in the air and on the ground. The system will process the data from ATRACC

and A- SMGCS systems. 3. Improve the safety level compared to a 2008

baseline.

1. The better traffic management on ground will contribute to reduced CO2

emissions and noise reduction.

1. Use of this system/concept will enable a capacity increase compared to

2013. 2. This will be adapted with implementing new technology. The target is

reduced taxing time on ground.

1. It will enable an increase in capacity and standardize and streamline service

provision. 2. Enable increased traffic volume without corresponding staff

increase. This enables an increase of revenues and reduction of unit rates. 3.

The airports will be given incentives for growth and an increase of revenues.

Collaborative Decision Making (CDM)

Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) implementation in Riga airport

LGS


Replacement

54

Common project No




Yes

Joint investment No


MSNo




benefits

Safety Yes

November 2019

Environment Yes

November 2019

Capacity Yes

November 2019

Cost efficiency Yes

November 2019

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

PBN implementation project 6 800 000 1 682 000 2 126 000 1 131 000 1 080 000 781 000 Various Various Various

Communication General 2 647 000 177 000 277 000 392 000 334 000 1 468 000 Various Various Various

A-SMGCS modernization 8 840 000 1 484 000 1 514 000 2 536 000 1 513 000 1 792 000 Various Various Various

Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) 14 781 000 2 679 000 2 448 000 2 253 000 3 505 000 3 898 000 Various Various Various



AOP05, AO-0501, AO-0601, AO-0602, AO-0603, DCB-0301, DCB-0302





1. Airport operators, aircraft operators, ground handlers and air traffic control

working together more efficiently and transparently and sharing data in real

time. Decisions – based on more accurate and timely information, including

the Central Flow Management Unit at EUROCONTROL (CFMU).

Various

1. New concept of operations will contribute to reduced CO2 emissions and

noise reduction. 2. The target is 5% reduction pr flight.

Various

1. CDM will enable a traffic increase compared to 2013. 2. This will be adapted

with implementing new technology. The target is reduced flight time on the

ground.

Various

1. It will enable an increase in in airspace capacity and standardize and

streamline service provision. 2. Enable increased traffic volume without

corresponding staff increase. This enables an increase of revenues and

reduction of unit rates. 3. The airports will be given incentives for growth and

an increase of revenues.

Various

Name of investment Total CAPEX for the projectPlanned Amount of Capital Expenditures (€)

Lifecycle

(Amortisation

period in years)

Allocation en

route / terminal

ANS (%)

Planned date of

entry into

operation (IOC /

FOC dates)

55

Total capex (1) + (2) 33 068 000 6 022 000 6 365 000 6 312 000 6 432 000 7 939 000

Additional comments

56

SECTION 3: PERFORMANCE TARGETS

RT ref. AI ref.


Regulation


Annex C




3. PERFORMANCE TARGETS AT LOCAL LEVEL 3

3.1. Performance targets in each key performance

area, set by reference to each key performance

indicator as set out in Annex I, Section 2, for the

entire reference period, with annual values to be

used for monitoring and incentive purposes:

3.1

3.1.(a).(i) RT 3 (4.1) AI 4 e)

3.1.(a). (ii)

3.1.(a). (iii)

3.1.(a). (iv)

3.1.(b).(i) & (ii)

3.1.(b).(iii)

3.1.(c).(i)

3.1.(c).(ii)

3.1.(c).(iii)

3.1.(c).(iv)

3.1.(d).1.A

3.1.(d).2.A

3.3. Description and explanation of the

interdependencies and trade-offs between the key

performance areas, including the assumptions used

to assess the trade-offs.

3.3

3.1.(a).(i)

3.1.(a). (ii)

3.1.(a). (iii)

3.1.(a). (iv)

3.1.(b).(i) & (ii)

3.1.(b).(iii)

3.1.(c).(i)

3.1.(c).(ii)

3.1.(c).(iii)

3.1.(c).(iv)

3.4. Contribution of each air navigation service

provider concerned to the achievement of the

performance targets set for the functional airspace

block in accordance with Article 5(2)(c)(i i).

RT 1 (All) AI 4 a)

3.2. Description and explanation of the consistency

of the performance targets with the relevant Union-

wide performance targets. When there is no Union-

wide performance target, description and

explanation of the targets within the plan and how

they contribute to the improvement of the

performance of the European ATM network.

57

SECTION 3.1.(a): SAFETY KPA

RT ref. AI ref.


Regulation


Annex C




(a) Safety 3.1.(a)

(i) level of effectiveness of safety management: local

targets for each year of the reference period;

3.1.(a).(i)

(i i) application of the severity classification based

on the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology: local

targets for each year of the reference period

(percentage);

3.1.(a). (ii)

(i i i) just culture: local targets for the last year of the

reference period.

3.1.(a). (iii)

3.1.(a). (iv) -

Optional section -

Additional Safety

KPI(s)

58

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Target Target Target Target Target

- - - - C

For Safety Culture MO - - - - C

For all other MOs - - - - D

Regulatory authorities A A B B C

Description of the consistency between local and Union-

wide targets

Detailed justification in case of inconsistency

ANSPs (for Safety Culture MO) C C C C C

ANSPs (for all other Mos) C C C C D


wide targets


Select Number of States >>

Estonia B B B C C

Finland C C C C C

Latvia B C C C C

Norway A A B B C

Select Number of ANSPs for Safety Culture MO >>

Avinor D D D D D

EANS C C C C C

Finavia C C C C C

LGS C C C C C

Select Number of ANSPs for all other MOs >>

Avinor D D D D D

EANS C C C C D

Finavia C C C C D

LGS C C C C D

KPI – Level of Effectiveness of Safety Management (ESTONIA)

Estonia has been monitoring the level of Effectiveness of Safety Management (EoSM) as required since 2012. The result from the first monitoring year (2012) has

shown that the service provider EANS has progressed more than Estonia Civil Aviation Administration in developing a satisfactory Safety Management System. The

result from the first monitoring year (2012) has shown that the Estonian Civil Aviation Administration still has a lot of work to do in order to meet the targets for

the second reference period.

Estonian Civil Aviation Authority has prepared a draft State Safety Programme and SSP implementation plan will be developed by the end of 2014. A timetable for

the implementation of each management objective will be included into the plan.

Estonian Civil Aviation Administration will consider the starting point to be the scores from 2013 survey. Once the results from that survey are published, a plan as

part of SSP implementation plan will be developed for each safety management objective area with an objective to reach at minimum the target levels set for

second reference period.

Based on the results from 2012, EANS is in the lowest quarter among the ANSPs with a score of 64 while the highest score among the ANSPs was 89. Once the

results from 2013 survey are available, a further plan will be developed to ensure the targets are achieved.

KPI – Level of Effectiveness of Safety Management (Finland)

Finnish State Safety Programme was implemented in April 2012 and it has been updated yearly. Currently FASP contains also two annexes, in Annex 1 the Finnish

Aviation Safety Plan and in Annex 2 Finnish Safety Performance Indicators and Targets. FASP will be also considered in the next update of Aviation Act to make it

compulsory for all aviation organisations to take into consideration safety indicators and respective safety targets in their operations. FASP contains descriptions

regarding the applicable SMS requirements for different aviation organisations. For ANS the reference is naturally to EC regulation 1035/2011.

Finland has been monitoring the level of Effectiveness of Safety Management (EoSM) as required since 2012. The results of the EoSM survey from 2012 place

Finnish Transport Safety Agency in the lowest quarter among the state NSAs with a score of 45 while the highest score among the state NSAs was 85. The ANSP

Finavia ranked significantly better with a score of 78 while the highest was 89. This placed Finavia in the middle pack in the ANSP comparison.

Although the safety performance targets set in the regulation for EoSM in the second reference period are lower for NSAs than ANSPs, Finnish Transport Safety

Agency aims to be in the highest quarter in the State NSA comparison. Finnish Transport Safety Agency will consider the starting point to be the scores from 2013

survey. Once the results from that survey are published, a plan will be developed for each safety management objective area with an objective to reach at

minimum the target levels set for second reference period and to place in the top quarter in score comparison to other NSAs.

Based on the results from 2012, Finavia is already quite close to achieving the targets set for second reference period. Once the results from 2013 survey are

available, a further plan will be developed to ensure the targets are achieved.

National level

4

Additional comments

4

National level

3.1 - Key Performance Areas

3 - PERFORMANCE TARGETS AT LOCAL LEVEL

National level

4

3.1.(a).(i) - Safety KPI #1: Level of Effectiveness of Safety Management

Union-wide targets at State level

3.1.(a) - Safety

Union-wide targets

at ANSP level

FAB level

59

KPI – Level of Effectiveness of Safety Management (Finland)

Finnish State Safety Programme was implemented in April 2012 and it has been updated yearly. Currently FASP contains also two annexes, in Annex 1 the Finnish

Aviation Safety Plan and in Annex 2 Finnish Safety Performance Indicators and Targets. FASP will be also considered in the next update of Aviation Act to make it

compulsory for all aviation organisations to take into consideration safety indicators and respective safety targets in their operations. FASP contains descriptions

regarding the applicable SMS requirements for different aviation organisations. For ANS the reference is naturally to EC regulation 1035/2011.

Finland has been monitoring the level of Effectiveness of Safety Management (EoSM) as required since 2012. The results of the EoSM survey from 2012 place

Finnish Transport Safety Agency in the lowest quarter among the state NSAs with a score of 45 while the highest score among the state NSAs was 85. The ANSP

Finavia ranked significantly better with a score of 78 while the highest was 89. This placed Finavia in the middle pack in the ANSP comparison.

Although the safety performance targets set in the regulation for EoSM in the second reference period are lower for NSAs than ANSPs, Finnish Transport Safety

Agency aims to be in the highest quarter in the State NSA comparison. Finnish Transport Safety Agency will consider the starting point to be the scores from 2013

survey. Once the results from that survey are published, a plan will be developed for each safety management objective area with an objective to reach at

minimum the target levels set for second reference period and to place in the top quarter in score comparison to other NSAs.

Based on the results from 2012, Finavia is already quite close to achieving the targets set for second reference period. Once the results from 2013 survey are

available, a further plan will be developed to ensure the targets are achieved.

KPI – Level of Effectiveness of Safety Management (Latvia)

The following goals for RP2 were set based on the EASA questionnaires in 2013 and 2014 about the effectiveness of safety management at the state level, the

criteria set for the assessment of each objective, and plans at the state level regarding the changes in the legal acts covering aviation safety oversight.

The major task in the upcoming years would be to improve the national legislation by describing responsibilities and accountabilities regarding implementation

and continuous management of the State Safety Program, including improvements in the performance based safety risk oversight and enforcement mechanisms,

in accordance with ICAO doc. 9859 and Annex 19 standards. Initial implementation of the State Safety program is planned by the end of 2014.

Separate safety actions take place regularly, like Runway Safety team meetings with the involvement of the interested parties and the CAA representatives as the

observers. Safety Action Group activities within the CAA of Latvia allow for more enhanced risk management approach at

the safety oversight level among various departments. Air navigation service provider’s LGS safety management manual has been approved by the CAA and this

manual is updated and improved on a continuous base, reflecting inefficiencies identified during safety oversight audit or considering changes in the aviation

legislation.

KPI – Level of Effectiveness of Safety Management (Norway)

Norway has been monitoring the level of Effectiveness of Safety Management (EoSM) for the year 2012 and 2013, and will continue to do so in 2014. The result

from the first monitoring year (2012) has shown that the service provider Avinor A/S has progressed significantly further than the Norwegian Civil Aviation

Authority in developing a satisfactory Safety Management System. With regard to the targets for EoSM in the second reference period, Avinor A/S is already close

to achieving the expected level set in Commission Decision

The result from the first monitoring year (2012) has shown that the Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority still has a lot of work to do in order to meet the targets for

the second reference period. The Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority has prepared a gap-analysis and a timetable for the implementation of each management

objective. The Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority has furthermore developed the framework for the State Safety Program, which will facilitate the implementation

of the management objectives.

The Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority will develop the Safety Management System gradually, keeping a special focus on one management objective at a time.

In the table below is compiled an overview of the present level of EoSM on State- and ANSP level and the targets for the second reference period. The level of

EoSM is defined as the minimum level of the effectiveness of safety management in each management objective.

60

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


SMIs - - >= 80% - 100 %

Ris - - >= 80% - 100 %

ATM-S - - >= 80% - 100 %

SMIs 95,00 % 95,00 % 95,00 % 97,50 % 100,00 %

RIs 95,00 % 95,00 % 95,00 % 97,50 % 100,00 %

ATM-S 50,00 % 62,50 % 85,00 % 87,50 % 100,00 %

Select Number of ANSPs >>

SMIs 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 %

RIs 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 %

ATM-S 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 %

SMIs 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 %

RIs 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 %

ATM-S 20,00 % 40,00 % 80,00 % 80,00 % 100,00 %

SMIs 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 %

RIs 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 %

ATM-S 20,00 % 40,00 % 80,00 % 80,00 % 100,00 %

SMIs 80,00 % 80,00 % 80,00 % 90,00 % 100,00 %

RIs 80,00 % 80,00 % 80,00 % 90,00 % 100,00 %

ATM-S 60,00 % 70,00 % 80,00 % 90,00 % 100,00 %

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


SMIs - - >= 80% >= 80% >= 80%

RIs - - >= 80% >= 80% >= 80%

ATM-S - - >= 80% - 100 %

SMIs 90,00 % 90,00 % 90,00 % 95,00 % 100,00 %

RIs 80,00 % 85,00 % 90,00 % 95,00 % 100,00 %

ATM-S 30,00 % 47,50 % 80,00 % 85,00 % 100,00 %

Select Number of States >>

SMIs 80,00 % 80,00 % 80,00 % 90,00 % 100,00 %

RIs 40,00 % 60,00 % 80,00 % 90,00 % 100,00 %

ATM-S 20,00 % 40,00 % 80,00 % 90,00 % 100,00 %

SMIs 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 %

RIs 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 %

ATM-S 20,00 % 40,00 % 80,00 % 80,00 % 100,00 %

SMIs 80,00 % 80,00 % 80,00 % 90,00 % 100,00 %

RIs 80,00 % 80,00 % 80,00 % 90,00 % 100,00 %

ATM-S 60,00 % 70,00 % 80,00 % 90,00 % 100,00 %

SMIs 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 %

RIs 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 % 100,00 %

ATM-S 20,00 % 40,00 % 80,00 % 80,00 % 100,00 %

National level

Union-wide targets

Avinor

EANS

Finavia

LGS

FAB level

Additional comments

FAB level

Additional comments

Estonia

Norway

Finland

Latvia

3.1.(a).(ii) - Safety KPI #2: Application of the severity classification based on the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology

Overall Score

Ground Score

Description of the consistency between local and Union-wide targets


Description of the consistency between local and Union-wide targets


4

National level

4

Union-wide targets

61

KPI – RAT (Finland)

At the moment the procedure in Finland regarding use of RAT is that Finavia and Trafi convene twice a year to process all SMI and RI occurrences which have

happened in Helsinki Airport and EFIN. 100% of these cases are processed via RAT.

As for the use of RAT for ATM specific occurrences, currently RAT is only used for some cases which are judged to possibly be of high severity. Only a small

percentage of total ATM specific occurrences in EFHK and EFIN is processed via RAT.

KPI-RAT (Latvia)

RAT methodology has been applied by the ANSP, CAA of Latvia and the Transport Accident and Incident Investigation Body for ATM/ANS related safety

occurrences. CAA of Latvia safety oversight includes verification of the RAT application by the ANSP. Further improvements in harmonisation of RAT methodology

application would be desirable at the EU level.

KPI – RAT (Norway)

Norway has been monitoring the application of the severity classification based on the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology for the year 2012 and 2013, and will

continue to do so in 2014.

Avinor A/S has applied the RAT methodology on all separation minima infringements, runway incursions and ATM-specific occurrences since 2012. They are at

present time in line with the target for the second reference period.

The Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority will start using the RAT methodology in 2014. The Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority has planned for a gradual introduction

of the tool throughout the second reference period.

KPI – RAT (Estonia)

Estonia has been monitoring the application of the severity classification based on the Risk Analysis Tool (RAT) methodology since 2012 and will continue to do so

in 2014.

EANS has applied the RAT methodology on all separation minima infringements and runway incursions since 2013.

The Estonian Civil Aviation Administration will start using the RAT methodology in 2015. The Estonian Civil Aviation Administration has planned for a gradual

introduction of the tool throughout the second reference period depending also on the implementation and risk classification scheme of a new European

Parliament and Council regulation on reporting, analysis and follow-up of occurrences in civil aviation.

62

Number of States

2019 Target

3.1.(a).(iii) - Safety KPI #3: Just Culture

ANSPs

Have you established a common FAB approach in certain areas for Just Culture improvements?

YES

FAB level

Regulatory authorities

4

Finland

What actions have you undertaken to optimise Just Culture?

Finland considers its performance in the area of Just Culture to be at a good level. This evaluation is

based on the result from previous Just Culture questionnaire and also on the fact that the number

of reported occurrences has been steadily rising over the last years. As a result, no separate

national plan for improvement of just culture is planned to be developed.

Areas of improvement could be introduction of a requirement for the ANSP to publish a just culture

policy and requirement for just culture issues to be included in training of authority and service

provider staff.

Have you established a common FAB approach in certain areas for Just Culture improvements?

NO

If YES, please specify details and level of presence. If NO, please specify any impediments, intent for

common FAB approach.

Estonia


The State Safety Programme implementation plan will be developed by the end of 2014.

The State Safety Programme implementation plan will address Just Culture policy issues and the

need for further development in this area.

A new European Parliament and Council regulation on reporting, analysis and follow-up of

occurrences in civil aviation will also address just culture issues which will be taken account as well.

Latvia


National level

If YES, please specify details and level of presence. If NO, please specify any impediments, intent for

common FAB approach.

NEFAB ANSPs have plans to further develop common basic ANS staff training to cover thorough

introduction to Safety Management System. The common training material would then include Just

culture-principles to be used all NEFAB ANSPs. The material will describe the purpose for

investigations to find the reason behind the incident or occurrences instead of trying to find

someone guilty as well the principle of confidentiality of reporting etc.

63

Number of ANSPs

Efforts during RP1 included establishment of more harmonized approach towards safety occurrence

reporting in accordance with Cabinet of Ministers regulation No 1033 about occurrence reporting in

civil aviation.

In light of the Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April

2014 on the reporting, analysis and follow-up of the occurences in civil aviaiton, amending

Regulation (EU) No 996/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Directive

2003/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No

1321/2007 and (EC) No1330/2007, it is planned to revise the national Cabinet of Ministers

regulation No. 1033 about occurrence reporting in civil aviation, in order to elaborate and better

facilitate various aspects of Just culture. Some basics of the just culture have been included in

various national legal acts. Based on the EASA Just culture questionnaire for RP1, specific

amendments and additional requirements would have to be implemented in the national legislation

in order to implement implement all just culture legal aspects.

Through safety oversight processes and separate discussions with the ANSP stemming from EASA

RP1 Just culture questionnaire, certain components of the just culture have been highlighted as

important improvements for RP2. ANSP approval of the Safety Culture Manual laying down specifics

of the ANSP approach towards achieving Just culture, is one such example.

Systematic training of Competent Authority staff and the ANSP staff in Just culture aspects of

reporting and policy implementation, subsequent evaluation of the effectiveness of such training

would be important enablers. However, implementation of certain legal and judiciary solutions in

the absence of appropriate union wide requirements might prove challenging.

Norway


Norway considers its performance in the area of Just Culture to be at a reasonable level. This

evaluation is based on the result from previous Just Culture questionnaire and also on the fact that

the number of reported occurrences has been steadily rising over the last years.

Areas of improvement that will be taken is the introduction of a requirement for the State to

publish a just culture policy and requirement for just culture issues to be included in training of

authority and service provider staff. Further will the establishment of a State Safety Program

address Just Culture policy issues and the need for further development in this area.

Latvia

National level

Finavia


Avinor

The following improvements have been planned to be completed during year 2014:

1. ANSP.P.2: A detailed description of what is considered to be unacceptable behavior will be

included in Finavia’s SMS documentation.

Entity/person responsible for this action: Risk Management / Heikki Pöllänen, Safety Manager.

Target date: By the end of 2014.

2. ANSP.P.3: Finavia will include a clear statement in its Just Culture policy that no disciplinary

action will be taken regarding the reporter for self-reported occurrences (except for the special

cases stated in the Aviation Law).



3. ANSP.P.4: The Risk Management unit will start up negotiations with the Finavia’s Legal unit

that would it be possible to publish an official statement which guarantees that Finavia will provide

legal support for its own staff in case of prosecution / legal action related to a safety occurrence.

Note: Possible restrictions may apply.



4. ANSP.P.11: The Risk Management unit will examine the possibilities to include regular

briefings about the Just Culture in its monthly Safety Bulletin or similar type of publication.

Entity/person responsible for this action: Risk Management / Seppo Simola, Safety Manager.


5. ANSP.O.6: The Risk Management unit will start up negotiations with the Finavia’s

Communication unit that would it be possible to include statistical feedback on occurrence reports

in the public annual report of Finavia.


Target date: By the end of Q1/2015.

Note: The abbreviations (i.e. ANSP.P.2) refers to ANSP Just Culture Questionnaire.

National level


The main focus has been on having an open and constructive dialogue with the unions and handling

the operational reports in a trustworthy way. Our focus now is to document our Just Culture. The

major thing missing is to finalize our Just Culture Policy document. The policy will be signed by top

management and include issues that remain to be put in writing. This is foreseen to be finalized in

2014.

For RP2 we plan to introduce automated reporting. In addition, we would welcome an agreement

between ANSPs and judicial/police authorities to ensure protection of reported incident data and

involved individuals.

EANS


EANS has written Just Culture policy together with Safety Policy into Safety Management Manual.

EANS reporting system works and occurrences are investigated. EANS plan for RP2 is to promote

Just Culture throughout the company periodically using different approaches and methods

4

64

Additional comments

National level

Finavia

LGS


The following improvements have been planned to be completed during year 2014:

1. ANSP.P.2: A detailed description of what is considered to be unacceptable behavior will be

included in Finavia’s SMS documentation.



2. ANSP.P.3: Finavia will include a clear statement in its Just Culture policy that no disciplinary

action will be taken regarding the reporter for self-reported occurrences (except for the special

cases stated in the Aviation Law).



3. ANSP.P.4: The Risk Management unit will start up negotiations with the Finavia’s Legal unit

that would it be possible to publish an official statement which guarantees that Finavia will provide

legal support for its own staff in case of prosecution / legal action related to a safety occurrence.

Note: Possible restrictions may apply.



4. ANSP.P.11: The Risk Management unit will examine the possibilities to include regular

briefings about the Just Culture in its monthly Safety Bulletin or similar type of publication.

Entity/person responsible for this action: Risk Management / Seppo Simola, Safety Manager.


5. ANSP.O.6: The Risk Management unit will start up negotiations with the Finavia’s

Communication unit that would it be possible to include statistical feedback on occurrence reports

in the public annual report of Finavia.


Target date: By the end of Q1/2015.

Note: The abbreviations (i.e. ANSP.P.2) refers to ANSP Just Culture Questionnaire.

On October 2013 the LGS adopted the Safety Culture Manual which defines company`s main values

of safety and just culture. It determines how the elements of safety culture shall be introduced,

measured and maintained. Additionally, at the moment the LGS is elaborating a plan on

introduction of the above mentioned procedure. It will include a list of particular tasks for the next

few years.

65

SECTION 3.1.(b): ENVIRONMENT KPA

RT ref. AI ref.


Regulation


Annex C




(b) Environment 3.1.(b)

(i) description of the process to improve route

design;

(i i) average horizontal en route fl ight efficiency of

the actual trajectory.

3.1.(b).(iii) -

Optional section -

Additional

Environment KPI(s)

3.1.(b).(i) & (ii)

66

NEFAB

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Value Value Value Value Target

Union-wide targets - - - - 2,60 %

FAB reference values 1,35 % 1,32 % 1,29 % 1,26 % 1,22 %

FAB level 1,35 % 1,32 % 1,29 % 1,26 % 1,22 %

Description of the consistency between FAB

targets and FAB reference values


ANSP contribution to local targets

3.1.(b) - Environment

3.1.(b).(i) & (ii) - Environment KPI #1: Horizontal en route flight efficiency (KEA)

Largest contribution of the NEFAB ANSPs is planned in 2015 after implementation of the free

route airspace with appropriate efficient connectivity between the terminal and en-route flight

trajectories.

Description of the process to improve route design

Overall contribution of each NEFAB ANSP is projected through implementation of the free route airspace above FL285 in November of 2015 within

respective FIR. Cooperation with Danish and Swedish FAB on FRA implementation across wider region in Northern Europe, would facilitate even more

optimum flight trajectories for the airspace users.

Targets at the FAB level will be elaborated once the FAB reference values become available.

Additional comments

67

SECTION 3.1.(c): CAPACITY KPA

Mapping between the PRB FAB performance plan template and the Annex II of EU Regulation 390/2013

Level 1' FAB PP

FAB PP Other annexes

RT ref. AI ref.

Structure of ANNEX II of Regulation 390/2013

Link with PRB template

Level2'

FAB PP - Annex C

(c) Capacity 3.1.(c)

(i) minutes of average en route ATFM delay per fl ight; 3.1.(c).(i)

(i i) minutes of average terminal ATFM arrival delay

per fl ight;

3.1.(c).(ii)

(i i i) the capacity plan established by the air

navigation service provider(s).

3.1.(c).(iii)

3.1.(c).(iv) - Optional

section - Additional

Capacity KPI(s)

68

NEFAB

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


0,50 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,50

0,12 0,12 0,13 0,13 0,13

0,12 0,12 0,13 0,13 0,13

0,08 0,08 0,08 0,08 0,08

0,12 0,12 0,13 0,13 0,13

0,08 0,08 0,08 0,08 0,08

0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04

Estonia is aiming for the given reference value in capacity and it is in line with

NEFAB wide target.

LGS

ANSP contribution to FAB targets

LARA system is planned to be implemented in 2014 in order to improve airspace

booking efficiency and the airspace availability to other airspace users. Currently

and for the foreseable future, Latvia is below European average en-route ATFM

delay, and is in line with NEFAB targets.



During RP1 capacity target for Finland was extremely challenging almost 0,0 min

per flight which is far from cost-optimum capacity. This would lead to over

capacity in the periods of low traffic. Despite of the fact that Finland is aiming for

less challenging 0,08 min ATFM delay/flight, Finland is still well below European

average en-route ATFM delay.


4

EANS

Additional comments


Norway’s target for en route ATFM delay in the first reference period was 0.05 min

per flight. This capacity target was set against the backdrop of a historical trend.

Such an ambitious target is probably in conflict with the cost optimum capacity.

In setting the capacity target for the second reference period the Norwegian Civil

Aviation Authority has considered the indicative values presented in the draft for

Commission Decision on EU-wide target on the 51st Single Sky Committee

meeting. Although the indicative values have been removed in latter drafts, the

Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority believes that the indicative values give some

indications on what the cost optimum capacity is. The indicative value for NEFAB is

0.13.

The Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority has furthermore been in contact with

Avinor A/S regarding the capacity target. In accordance with Avinor A/S the

Norwegian air traffic network is so complex and interdependent that an en route

ATFM delay of 0.13 would be unacceptable for the airspace users. This is based on

the fact that a large portion of the overall traffic is transition flights with little

leeway in terms of delays. Avinor A/S has made some preliminary calculations that

suggest that 0.08 min per flight is the upper threshold of what would be

acceptable for the airspace user.

Avinor A/S has also presented this figure to the biggest Norwegian airlines. The

airlines didn’t have any objections against a more lenient capacity target

(compared to first reference period), provided that this results in cost savings.

3.1.(c) - Capacity

National level

3.1.(c).(i) - Capacity KPI #1: En route ATFM delay per flight

Select Number of ANSPs >>

Avinor

FAB reference values

FAB level

Union-wide targets

Description of the consistency between FAB targets and FAB

reference values

Finavia

69

NEFAB

Estonia 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

Finland 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


0,13 0,13 0,14 0,14 0,14

0,13 0,13 0,14 0,14 0,14

Latvia 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04

0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04

Norway 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


0,60 0,60 0,60 0,60 0,60

Additional comments

EVLA and EVVA are exempt from the performance and charging schemes.

National level

EVVA (VENTSPILS)

Airport contribution to national targets

Airport level

EVRA (RIGA)

Additional comments

National level

Contribution to the improvement of the European ATM network performance

Number of airports 3

Airport level

EVLA (LIEPAJA)


Airport contribution to national targets During the RP1 sufficient capacity has been provided to meet the demand. EVRA


The terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay has been monitored in the first

reference period. There has been a big variation in Finland over the years.

Therefore NSA Finland has set a target which is challenging but achievable.


EFHK (HELSINKI-VANTAA)

Airport contribution to national targets EFHK is the only airport in the scope.

National level

Additional comments

3.1.(c).(ii) - Capacity KPI #2: Terminal and airport ANS ATFM arrival delay per flight

Number of airports

EETN (LENNART MERI TALLINN)


National level


2


reference period. At national level Estonia had a delay of 0.00 min per flight in

2012 and in 2013. EANS has, at present time, not presented a proposal for targets

for ANS ATFM arrival delay for the second reference period. The Estonian Civil

Aviation Administration has limited knowledge about whether the ANS ATFM

arrival delay 0.00 min per flight can be maintained and at what cost. The Estonian

Civil Aviation Administration preliminary proposal is to maintain current situation

and we note that the targets will be probably revised once we receive more input

on this subject.

4Number of States

Airport levelEETU (TARTU)


70

Additional comments

Airport level

ENBR (BERGEN/FLESLAND)


ENGM (OSLO/GARDERMOEN)


ENVA (TRONDHEIM/VAERNES)


ENZV (STAVANGER/SOLA)




reference period. At national level Norway had a delay of 0.71 min per flight in

2012 and a delay of 0.60 min per flight in 2013. Avinor A/S has, at present time, not

presented a proposal for targets for ANS ATFM arrival delay for the second

reference period. The Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority has limited knowledge

about whether the ANS ATFM arrival delay can be reduced beyond the current

level and at what cost. The Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority preliminary proposal

is therefore a flat development, ie no further delays compared to 2013.

We note that the targets probably will be revised once we receive more input on

this subject.


71

3.1.(c).(iii) - Capacity Plans

In order to avoid duplication, Member States will not be requested to attach ANSPs capacity plans when submitting the performance plans, for

as long as they are already available to the PRB and the Commission. In any case, they are an integral part of the FAB performance plans.

72

SECTION 3.1.(d): COST-EFFICIENCY KPA

RT ref. AI ref.


Regulation


Annex C











3.1.(d).1.A

3.1.(d).2.A

3.1.(d).1.A

3.1.(d).2.A

3.1.(d).1.C

3.1.(d).2.C

3.1.(d).1.A

3.1.(d).2.A



concerned, as well as on the gearing ratio and on the

level/composition of the asset base used to


determined costs;

RT 1 (3.1-3.4, 3.6) AI 1 e)



RT 1 (3.1-3.4, 3.6) AI 3 c), d), e)

(vi) description of economic assumptions, including: 3.1.(d).1.B





Harmonised Index of Consumer Price for the actuals.

Justification of any deviation from these sources,

3.1.(d).2.B








AI 4 b)







determined costs,

RT 1 (3.7) AI 4 c)



AI 1 Item c)




Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 using the

criteria set out in Article 14(2)(b) of Implementing

Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 including an

assessment of the level, composition and

justification of costs exempt from the application of

Article 14(1)(a) and (b) of Implementing Regulation

(EU) No 391/2013;

RT 3 (3.1-3.12) AI 3 b)

(vii i) if applicable, a description of any significant





RT 3 (4.1) AI 4 d)



RT 3 (4.1) AI 4 e)

(i i) en route and terminal service units forecast for


(i i i) as a result, the determined unit costs for the

reference period;

RT 1 (5.4)

RT 1 (5.5)

RT 1 (5.1-5.2)

73








3.1.(d).1.A

3.1.(d).2.A

3.1.(d).1.A

3.1.(d).2.A

3.1.(d).1.C

3.1.(d).2.C

3.1.(d).1.A

3.1.(d).2.A



concerned, as well as on the gearing ratio and on the

level/composition of the asset base used to


determined costs;

RT 1 (3.1-3.4, 3.6) AI 1 e)



RT 1 (3.1-3.4, 3.6) AI 3 c), d), e)

(vi) description of economic assumptions, including: 3.1.(d).1.B





Harmonised Index of Consumer Price for the actuals.

Justification of any deviation from these sources,

3.1.(d).2.B








AI 4 b)







determined costs,

RT 1 (3.7) AI 4 c)



AI 1 Item c)




Implementing Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 using the

criteria set out in Article 14(2)(b) of Implementing

Regulation (EU) No 391/2013 including an

assessment of the level, composition and

justification of costs exempt from the application of

Article 14(1)(a) and (b) of Implementing Regulation

(EU) No 391/2013;

RT 3 (3.1-3.12) AI 3 b)

(vii i) if applicable, a description of any significant





RT 3 (4.1) AI 4 d)



RT 3 (4.1) AI 4 e)

(i i) en route and terminal service units forecast for


(i i i) as a result, the determined unit costs for the

reference period;

RT 1 (5.4)

RT 1 (5.5)

RT 1 (5.1-5.2)

IMPORTANT NOTE FOR SECTION 3.1.(d) – Cost-efficiency: The data and justifications for the cost-efficiency targets at local level are split into two distinct parts of the performance plan, aiming at optimising workload and avoiding duplication of reporting. They comprise: 1. In the body of the performance plan document, the information to be presented at charging zone level (some of the data requested being

pre-filled by the PRB): • The targets with a description of the contribution to, and consistency with, the EU-wide target and/or their contribution to the

performance of the European ATM network;: • The entries and justification requiring data from external sources i.e.

o The traffic forecast used and, if applicable, their justification against STATFOR o The inflation assumptions used and, if applicable, their justification against Eurostat/ IMF.

• The local alert thresholds, if any, and their justification. • A presentation of the consolidation of the targets at FAB level.

2. In Annex C, the information needed at the level of the entities submitted to the performance scheme within the charging zones (ANSPs

including MET providers, National authorities…), as follows: • The data and justifications in the reporting tables and additional information, as per Annexes II, III, VI and VII of the charging

Regulation, at entity level plus a consolidation at charging zone level; • The data and justifications relating to cost-efficiency required at entity level for the purpose of the Performance Plans, as per

Article 11 (3) and Annexes II and IV of the performance Regulation,. Annex C forms an integral part of the performance plan and will be used to carry out the assessment of the performance plan.

74

NEFAB

Number of en route charging zones 4

1 Estonia

2 Finland

3 Latvia

4 Norway

Number of terminal charging zones 4

1 Estonia

2 Finland

3 Latvia

4 Norway

3.1.(d) - Cost Efficiency

List of En Route Charging Zones

List of Terminal Charging Zones

75

3.1.(d).1 - En Route Charging Zone #1

A - Cost efficiency KPI #1: Determined unit cost (DUC) for en route ANS in EUR

Historical data (actual 2009-2013, latest 2014 forecast) RP2 Performance Plan RP1 PP Average pct variation p.a.

Estonia 2009 A 2010 A 2011 A 2012 A 2013 A 2014 F 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D 2014 D2009A-

2019D

2014F-

2019D

2011A-

2019D

2014D-

2019D

Total en route actual/forecast/determined costs in

nominal terms (in national currency)13 715 000 14 316 461 14 888 000 16 689 000 17 052 000 21 163 000 23 098 175 24 757 151 25 985 553 27 073 003 28 182 980 19 181 800 7,5% 5,9% 8,3% 8,0%

Inflation % 3,00 % 5,10 % 4,20 % 3,20 % 2,80 % 3,00 % 3,10 % 3,00 % 3,00 % 3,00 %

Inflation index (Base = 100 in 2012) 88,7 91,3 96,0 100,0 103,2 106,1 109,3 112,7 116,0 119,5 123,1 103,9 3,3% 3,0% 3,2% 3,5%

Total en route actual/forecast/determined costs in real

terms (in national currency at 2012 prices)15 470 469 15 678 558 15 513 296 16 689 000 16 523 256 19 948 232 21 138 182 21 975 156 22 393 709 22 651 308 22 893 202 18 467 122 4,0% 2,8% 5,0% 4,4%

Total en route Service Units (TSU) 632 000 627 000 704 000 725 000 741 000 747 000 774 641 801 575 827 117 855 350 885 643 825 255 3,4% 3,5% 2,9% 1,4%

Real en route UCs/DUCs (in national currency at 2012

prices)24,48 25,01 22,04 23,02 22,30 26,70 27,29 27,41 27,07 26,48 25,85 22,38 0,5% -0,6% 2,0% 2,9%

2012 average exchange rate (1EUR=) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total en route costs in real terms (in €2012 prices) 15 470 469 15 678 558 15 513 296 16 689 000 16 523 256 19 948 232 21 138 182 21 975 156 22 393 709 22 651 308 22 893 202 18 467 122 4,0% 2,8% 5,0% 4,4%

Trend in total en route costs in real terms %n/n-1 1,3% -1,1% 7,6% -1,0% 20,7% 6,0% 4,0% 1,9% 1,2% 1,1%

Real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2012 prices) 24,48 25,01 22,04 23,02 22,30 26,70 27,29 27,41 27,07 26,48 25,85 22,38 0,5% -0,6% 2,0% 2,9%

Trend in real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2012 prices) %n/n-1 2,2% -11,9% 4,5% -3,1% 19,8% 2,2% 0,5% -1,2% -2,2% -2,4%

Inflation index (Base = 100 in 2009) 100,00 103,00 108,25 112,80 116,41 119,67 123,26 127,08 130,89 134,82 138,86 117,16


Total en route costs in real terms (in €2009 prices) 13 715 000 13 899 477 13 752 968 14 795 262 14 648 325 17 684 662 18 739 585 19 481 586 19 852 645 20 081 013 20 295 459 16 371 617 4,0% 2,8% 5,0% 4,4%

Trend in total en route costs in real terms %n/n-1 1,3% -1,1% 7,6% -1,0% 20,7% 6,0% 4,0% 1,9% 1,2% 1,1%

Real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2009 prices) 21,70 22,17 19,54 20,41 19,77 23,67 24,19 24,30 24,00 23,48 22,92 19,84 0,5% -0,6% 2,0% 2,9%

Trend in real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2009 prices) %n/n-1 2,2% -11,9% 4,5% -3,1% 19,8% 2,2% 0,5% -1,2% -2,2% -2,4%


wide targets

€2

01

2 p

rice

s€

20

09

pri

ces

As Estonian ANS has been the most efficient ANSP for recent years in Europe and it has relatively difficult starting point for cost-efficiency trend target for reference period 2. It is important to note that Estonian

determined unit cost for en route air navigation services is already well bellow the average EU wide determined determined unit cost for en route air navigation services. Real en route costs will increse to do

joining with the Eurocontrol as Eurocontrols cost are included into costbase. The second reason for growing costs are related to implementing of European Commission regulations (for example Data Link and

systems upgrading). Estonin living standard cost are expected to increase (low starting point shown in the different benchmarking reports). Growing costs are also driven by need to move towards the unified

living standards with well developed countries to avoid losing employees going abroad to work for higher salaries. This is common concern in every branch of economy in Estonia and needs special concern from

State in coming years.

Loca

l cu

rren

cy (

No

min

al a

nd

20

12

pri

ces)

76

B - Inflation assumptions

Estonia 2009 A 2010 A 2011 A 2012 A 2013 A 2014 F 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D

Inflation % 4,20 % 3,20 % 2,80 % 3,00 % 3,10 % 3,00 % 3,00 % 3,00 %

Inflation index (2012=100) 100,00 103,20 106,09 109,27 112,66 116,04 119,52 123,11

Eurostat HICP (actuals) and IMF CPI (forecasts) 4,20 % 3,20 % 3,20 % 2,80 % 2,50 % 2,40 % 2,30 % 2,20 %

Inflation index (2012=100) HICP and IMF 100,00 103,20 106,50 109,48 112,22 114,91 117,56 120,14

Difference in percentage points 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01

Cumulative difference in percentage points 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03

Justification and data source in case of deviation from

inflation references

C - Service Units forecast for en route


Total en route service units (TSU) 725 000 741 000 747 000 774 641 801 575 827 117 855 350 885 643

Year on Year variation TSU 2,2% 0,8% 3,7% 3,5% 3,2% 3,4% 3,5%

STATFOR en route service units forecast (Baseline

scenario)724 536 740 986 746 339 774 641 801 575 827 117 855 350 885 643

Year on Year variation TSU STATFOR 2,3% 0,7% 3,8% 3,5% 3,2% 3,4% 3,5%



STATFOR en route service units forecast (Low scenario) 724 536 740 986 734 746 756 472 765 239 776 396 789 612 803 650

Year on Year variation TSU STATFOR 2,3% -0,8% 3,0% 1,2% 1,5% 1,7% 1,8%



Explanation of the differences (if any), justification,

rationale and source

D - Alert thresholds (en route service units)


Local thresholds 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 %

Local thresholds set by the European Commission 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 %

Detailed justification in case of deviation

IMPORTANT NOTE

The data and justifications for the cost-efficiency targets at local level are split into two distinct parts of the performance plan, aiming at optimising workload and avoiding duplication of reporting. They comprise:

1.In the body of the performance plan document, the information to be presented at charging zone level (some of the data requested being pre-filled by the PRB):

•The targets with a description of the contribution to, and consistency with, the EU-wide target and/or their contribution to the performance of the European ATM network;:

•The entries and justification requiring data from external sources i.e.

oThe traffic forecast used and, if applicable, their justification against STATFOR

No deviation.

Bas

elin

eLo

w

Inflation forecasts have been taken from September 2013 Forecast of the Ministry of Finance of Estonia

(http://www.fin.ee/official-statistics). Forecast of the Ministry of Finance were the most updated forecast in time of

completion of Performance Plan and the Ministry of Finance has first-hand knowledge of national conditions.

Estonia has decided to use for traffic assumption STATFOR baseline ( February 2014). Iit is expected that baseline

forecast would be more realistic.

77

oThe inflation assumptions used and, if applicable, their justification against Eurostat/ IMF.

•The local alert thresholds, if any, and their justification.

•A presentation of the consolidation of the targets at FAB level.

2.In Annex C, the information needed at the level of the entities submitted to the performance scheme within the charging zones (ANSPs including MET providers, National authorities…), as follows:

•The data and justifications in the reporting tables and additional information, as per Annexes II, III, VI and VII of the charging Regulation, at entity level plus a consolidation at charging zone level;

•The data and justifications relating to cost-efficiency required at entity level for the purpose of the Performance Plans, as per Article 11 (3) and Annexes II and IV of the performance Regulation,.

Annex C forms an integral part of the performance plan and will be used to carry out the assessment of the performance plan.

78




Finland 2009 A 2010 A 2011 A 2012 A 2013 A 2014 F 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D 2014 D2009A-

2019D

2014F-

2019D

2011A-

2019D

2014D-

2019D


nominal terms (in national currency)29 735 104 29 059 106 39 664 000 43 867 300 43 447 636 45 677 900 45 079 000 45 627 000 46 096 000 46 354 000 46 502 000 47 091 000 4,6% 0,4% 2,0% -0,3%

Inflation % 1,70 % 3,30 % 3,20 % 2,20 % 1,71 % 1,54 % 1,70 % 1,90 % 2,00 % 2,00 %



terms (in national currency at 2012 prices)32 238 174 30 978 635 40 933 248 43 867 300 42 512 364 43 943 190 42 710 152 42 506 741 42 142 952 41 547 869 40 863 259 44 953 038 2,4% -1,4% 0,0% -1,9%

Total en route Service Units (TSU) 727 050 740 000 832 459 790 296 770 452 775 200 792 600 812 000 827 000 843 000 861 000 940 000 1,7% 2,1% 0,4% -1,7%


prices)44,34 41,86 49,17 55,51 55,18 56,69 53,89 52,35 50,96 49,29 47,46 47,82 0,7% -3,5% -0,4% -0,2%


Total en route costs in real terms (in €2012 prices) 32 238 174 30 978 635 40 933 248 43 867 300 42 512 364 43 943 190 42 710 152 42 506 741 42 142 952 41 547 869 40 863 259 44 953 038 2,4% -1,4% 0,0% -1,9%

Trend in total en route costs in real terms %n/n-1 -3,9% 32,1% 7,2% -3,1% 3,4% -2,8% -0,5% -0,9% -1,4% -1,6%

Real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2012 prices) 44,34 41,86 49,17 55,51 55,18 56,69 53,89 52,35 50,96 49,29 47,46 47,82 0,7% -3,5% -0,4% -0,2%

Trend in real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2012 prices) %n/n-1 -5,6% 17,5% 12,9% -0,6% 2,7% -4,9% -2,9% -2,7% -3,3% -3,7%



Total en route costs in real terms (in €2009 prices) 29 735 104 28 573 359 37 755 066 40 461 309 39 211 575 40 531 307 39 394 006 39 206 388 38 870 845 38 321 966 37 690 511 41 462 747 2,4% -1,4% 0,0% -1,9%

Trend in total en route costs in real terms %n/n-1 -3,9% 32,1% 7,2% -3,1% 3,4% -2,8% -0,5% -0,9% -1,4% -1,6%

Real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2009 prices) 40,90 38,61 45,35 51,20 50,89 52,28 49,70 48,28 47,00 45,46 43,78 44,11 0,7% -3,5% -0,4% -0,2%

Trend in real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2009 prices) %n/n-1 -5,6% 17,5% 12,9% -0,6% 2,7% -4,9% -2,9% -2,7% -3,3% -3,7%

€2

01

2 p

rice

s€

20

09

pri

ces


wide targets

In the RP1 performance plan Finland decided to use STATFOR high case traffic forecast due to unexpected, strong growth in traffic before RP1. However, traffic volume has not increased as expected. Economy

in Finland has been sluggish and exceptionally many companies have ceased operations to and from Finland. In 2012 traffic was 9,9 % and in 2013 15,1 % below PP forecast. It is expected that in 2014 traffic will

be more than 10 % below PP forecast. The difference in TSUs has already generated significant losses during 2012- 2013 and significant losses are expected also in 2014 from the traffic risk sharing.

As a response to these losses in revenue, Finavia (and other entities) has been cutting costs. In 2012 real en-route costs for Finavia were -2,4 % lower than planned and in 2013 costs were -1,9 % lower than

planned and it is expected that Finavia will continue cutting its costs also during 2014 following the traffic downturn. As a result of the cost sharing mechanism, Finavia can retain the amounts generated by the

costs savings (i.e. +0,8 M€2009) compared to NPP in 2012. However, the difference in planned and actual traffic generated a loss of -1,5 M€2009 for Finavia in 2012 (traffic risk sharing). Overall, the en-route

activity for the year 2012 generated a net loss of -0,7 M€2009 for Finavia. On the profitability side, the actual surplus relating to the 2012 en-route activities of the ATSP is nearly zero. It is expected that the

situation is quite the same for 2013 and 2014.

Finland has decided to define the starting point for ANSP’s exactly as proposed by the Commission. Thus, the expected improvements in cost-efficiency for the RP2 should be measured against determined costs

for 2014 adjusted by the expected effect of the traffic risk sharing. That means that the nominal starting point for 2014 is about 45,7 M€. That also means that Finland’s DUC in real terms (€2009) will be 52,28 €.

That is 5,81 € below Union-wide average. Although Finavia has been cutting costs in order to respond to the lower traffic volume, the traffic downturn has been so huge that actual costs are expected to be

significantly higher than this starting point. For this reason costs for 2014 in this template are not forecasted actuals because they are adjusted by the expected effect of the traffic risk sharing.

Because the assumptions made now for 2014 should be set in consistency with RP1 assumptions Finland is of the opinion that during RP2 Finavia needs to aim at freezing its 2014 nominal determined costs. By

freezing the determined nominal costs Finavia’s determined costs in real terms will decrease by 3,3 M€ during RP2.

Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI) is reducing its cost base significantly. The average change in real terms per year is -12,1 % (DC) and -13,9 % (DUC). Explanation for this is as follows:

Finnish parliament decided to open all weather data, which Finnish Meteorological Institute owns, for free to all users (not only for use of civil aviation) in December 2013. This data includes also observation

data for aviation, which has been delivered for free since the beginning of 2014. By making this decision Finnish parliament also decided to fund these observations from the national budget. Due to changes in

observation data funding arrangements and according to 9161 Manual, FMI has deducted partially aviation observation costs from MET cost base starting form 2015. Because this decision was made late in

2013 the cost base for 2014 is unchanged. Change in cost base will happen in January 2015. The budget fund for 2014 will be returned to users in during RP2.

NSA’s costs (Eurocontrol included) are showing almost “flat line” in real terms (DC).

Loca

l cu

rren

cy (

No

min

al a

nd

20

12

pri

ces)

79


wide targets

In the RP1 performance plan Finland decided to use STATFOR high case traffic forecast due to unexpected, strong growth in traffic before RP1. However, traffic volume has not increased as expected. Economy

in Finland has been sluggish and exceptionally many companies have ceased operations to and from Finland. In 2012 traffic was 9,9 % and in 2013 15,1 % below PP forecast. It is expected that in 2014 traffic will

be more than 10 % below PP forecast. The difference in TSUs has already generated significant losses during 2012- 2013 and significant losses are expected also in 2014 from the traffic risk sharing.

As a response to these losses in revenue, Finavia (and other entities) has been cutting costs. In 2012 real en-route costs for Finavia were -2,4 % lower than planned and in 2013 costs were -1,9 % lower than

planned and it is expected that Finavia will continue cutting its costs also during 2014 following the traffic downturn. As a result of the cost sharing mechanism, Finavia can retain the amounts generated by the

costs savings (i.e. +0,8 M€2009) compared to NPP in 2012. However, the difference in planned and actual traffic generated a loss of -1,5 M€2009 for Finavia in 2012 (traffic risk sharing). Overall, the en-route

activity for the year 2012 generated a net loss of -0,7 M€2009 for Finavia. On the profitability side, the actual surplus relating to the 2012 en-route activities of the ATSP is nearly zero. It is expected that the

situation is quite the same for 2013 and 2014.

Finland has decided to define the starting point for ANSP’s exactly as proposed by the Commission. Thus, the expected improvements in cost-efficiency for the RP2 should be measured against determined costs

for 2014 adjusted by the expected effect of the traffic risk sharing. That means that the nominal starting point for 2014 is about 45,7 M€. That also means that Finland’s DUC in real terms (€2009) will be 52,28 €.

That is 5,81 € below Union-wide average. Although Finavia has been cutting costs in order to respond to the lower traffic volume, the traffic downturn has been so huge that actual costs are expected to be

significantly higher than this starting point. For this reason costs for 2014 in this template are not forecasted actuals because they are adjusted by the expected effect of the traffic risk sharing.

Because the assumptions made now for 2014 should be set in consistency with RP1 assumptions Finland is of the opinion that during RP2 Finavia needs to aim at freezing its 2014 nominal determined costs. By

freezing the determined nominal costs Finavia’s determined costs in real terms will decrease by 3,3 M€ during RP2.

Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI) is reducing its cost base significantly. The average change in real terms per year is -12,1 % (DC) and -13,9 % (DUC). Explanation for this is as follows:

Finnish parliament decided to open all weather data, which Finnish Meteorological Institute owns, for free to all users (not only for use of civil aviation) in December 2013. This data includes also observation

data for aviation, which has been delivered for free since the beginning of 2014. By making this decision Finnish parliament also decided to fund these observations from the national budget. Due to changes in

observation data funding arrangements and according to 9161 Manual, FMI has deducted partially aviation observation costs from MET cost base starting form 2015. Because this decision was made late in

2013 the cost base for 2014 is unchanged. Change in cost base will happen in January 2015. The budget fund for 2014 will be returned to users in during RP2.

NSA’s costs (Eurocontrol included) are showing almost “flat line” in real terms (DC).

80


Finland 2009 A 2010 A 2011 A 2012 A 2013 A 2014 F 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D

Inflation % 3,20 % 2,20 % 1,71 % 1,54 % 1,70 % 1,90 % 2,00 % 2,00 %

Inflation index (2012=100) 100,00 102,20 103,95 105,55 107,34 109,38 111,57 113,80










Year on Year variation TSU -2,5% 0,6% 2,2% 2,4% 1,8% 1,9% 2,1%


scenario)790 296 770 452 780 141 796 129 812 467 826 932 843 079 860 929

Year on Year variation TSU STATFOR -2,5% 1,3% 2,0% 2,1% 1,8% 2,0% 2,1%

Difference in percentage points 0,00 -0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

Cumulative difference in percentage points 0,00 -0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00


Year on Year variation TSU STATFOR -2,5% -0,6% 0,9% 0,3% 0,4% 0,6% 0,7%










IMPORTANT NOTE








Finland has decided to use for traffic assumption STATFOR baseline (rounded to nearest thousands). For years 2014

and 2015 Eurocontrol Two-Year Intermediate Forecast is used (May 2014). It is in the Finland's interest to avoid over-

and under recoveries caused by traffic. Finland studied the contributors used in the STATFOR forecasts and these

forecasts are believed to be the most accurate forecasts for RP2.

No deviation from inflation references.

Bas

elin

eLo

w

81






82




Latvia 2009 A 2010 A 2011 A 2012 A 2013 A 2014 F 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D 2014 D2009A-

2019D

2014F-

2019D

2011A-

2019D

2014D-

2019D


nominal terms (in national currency)20 652 984 20 851 000 20 393 000 22 067 000 22 680 662 23 118 000 23 902 000 24 692 818 25 534 000 22 223 835 0,0% 3,0% 2,7% 2,8%

Inflation % -1,20 % 4,20 % 2,30 % 0,01 % 1,50 % 2,48 % 2,33 % 2,30 % 2,30 % 2,30 %



terms (in national currency at 2012 prices)0 0 21 128 003 20 851 000 20 390 757 21 738 495 21 803 389 21 718 847 21 950 535 22 166 947 22 406 729 21 493 071 0,0% 0,6% 0,7% 0,8%

Total en route Service Units (TSU) 702 400 707 109 733 633 780 000 802 000 824 000 844 000 867 000 890 000 765 000 0,0% 2,7% 3,0% 3,1%


prices)30,08 29,49 27,79 27,87 27,19 26,36 26,01 25,57 25,18 28,10 0,0% -2,0% -2,2% -2,2%


Total en route costs in real terms (in €2012 prices) 0 0 21 128 003 20 851 000 20 390 757 21 738 495 21 803 389 21 718 847 21 950 535 22 166 947 22 406 729 21 493 071 0,0% 0,6% 0,7% 0,8%

Trend in total en route costs in real terms %n/n-1 -1,3% -2,2% 6,6% 0,3% -0,4% 1,1% 1,0% 1,1%

Real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2012 prices) 30,08 29,49 27,79 27,87 27,19 26,36 26,01 25,57 25,18 28,10 0,0% -2,0% -2,2% -2,2%

Trend in real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2012 prices) %n/n-1 -2,0% -5,7% 0,3% -2,5% -3,0% -1,3% -1,7% -1,5%



Total en route costs in real terms (in €2009 prices) 0 0 20 061 257 19 798 240 19 361 235 20 640 926 20 702 543 20 622 270 20 842 260 21 047 746 21 275 421 20 407 893 0,0% 0,6% 0,7% 0,8%

Trend in total en route costs in real terms %n/n-1 -1,3% -2,2% 6,6% 0,3% -0,4% 1,1% 1,0% 1,1%

Real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2009 prices) 28,56 28,00 26,39 26,46 25,81 25,03 24,69 24,28 23,90 26,68 0,0% -2,0% -2,2% -2,2%

Trend in real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2009 prices) %n/n-1 -2,0% -5,7% 0,3% -2,5% -3,0% -1,3% -1,7% -1,5%


wide targets

€2

01

2 p

rice

s€

20

09

pri

ces

Yearly unit rate reduction in the adopted NPP for RP1 is 2.9%. Taking into account that Latvia is one of the countries with historicaly lowest unit rate within EU area, the level of ambition in terms of planned

reduction of determined unit costs for en route ANS should take into account performance delivered by LGS in RP1 and local circumstances in economic development when setting the cost-efficiency targets for

RP2.

Real en route costs in RP2 will increase slightly taking into account the need to increase staff costs due to significant diferences in salary levels and other social guarantees when compared to other ANSPs in EU.

Note about missing historical data: As Latvia became EUROCONTROL member state from the 1st of January 2011, prior to the technical integration of a new member state in the Multilateral Route Charges

System, the CRCO made assessment of Latvia`s cost figures. To ensure Latvia`s cost base compliane with EUROCONTROL principles, Latvia`s ANS costs were significantly restructured. Therefore historical cost

data are not comparable with the current cost data and could lead to the misleading interpretation.

Loca

l cu

rren

cy (

No

min

al a

nd

20

12

pri

ces)

83


Latvia 2009 A 2010 A 2011 A 2012 A 2013 A 2014 F 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D

Inflation % 2,30 % 0,01 % 1,50 % 2,48 % 2,33 % 2,30 % 2,30 % 2,30 %

Inflation index (2012=100) 100,00 100,01 101,51 104,02 106,44 108,89 111,39 113,96












scenario)707 109 733 633 796 139 814 187 838 334 860 009 882 724 908 260


Difference in percentage points 0,00 -0,02 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

Cumulative difference in percentage points 0,00 -0,02 -0,01 -0,02 -0,02 -0,02 -0,02












IMPORTANT NOTE








Used STATFOR baseline scenario.

STATFOR develops its forecasts based on statistical materials and outlooks. Latvia borders with Russia and historically

is largely dependent on cooperation with Russia. The latest developments in Russsia, regarding the conflict with

Ukraine, possible deepening of economical sanctions, are not reflected in the STATFOR latest forecast.

No deviation

EUROSTAT HICP (actuals) and IMF CPI (forecasts)

Bas

elin

eLo

w

84






85


A - Cost efficiency KPI #1: Determined unit cost (DUC) for en route ANS in NOK


Norway 2009 A 2010 A 2011 A 2012 A 2013 A 2014 F 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D 2014 D2009A-

2019D

2014F-

2019D

2011A-

2019D

2014D-

2019D


nominal terms (in national currency)816 343 600 806 335 205 851 265 387 844 093 366 972 353 675 971 844 282 1 000 909 539 1 026 368 522 1 044 668 946 1 057 882 586 1 066 084 637 891 017 436 2,7% 1,9% 2,9% 3,7%

Inflation % 1,70 % 1,20 % 0,40 % 2,00 % 2,30 % 1,60 % 1,70 % 2,10 % 2,50 % 2,50 %



terms (in national currency at 2012 prices)843 544 835 819 275 272 854 670 449 844 093 366 953 287 917 931 367 069 944 115 907 951 947 193 948 991 836 937 556 382 921 780 987 850 465 354 0,9% -0,2% 0,9% 1,6%

Total en route Service Units (TSU) 1 494 584 1 582 742 1 712 781 1 845 568 2 050 929 2 202 000 2 287 878 2 367 954 2 438 992 2 499 967 2 549 966 1 842 584 5,5% 3,0% 5,1% 6,7%


prices)564,40 517,63 499,00 457,36 464,81 422,96 412,66 402,01 389,09 375,03 361,49 461,56 -4,4% -3,1% -3,9% -4,8%

2012 average exchange rate (1EUR=) 7,47413 7,47413 7,47413 7,47413 7,47413 7,47413 7,47413 7,47413 7,47413 7,47413 7,47413 7,47413

Total en route costs in real terms (in €2012 prices) 112 861 943 109 614 801 114 350 493 112 935 334 127 545 001 124 612 105 126 317 833 127 365 619 126 970 207 125 440 203 123 329 536 113 787 873 0,9% -0,2% 0,9% 1,6%

Trend in total en route costs in real terms %n/n-1 -2,9% 4,3% -1,2% 12,9% -2,3% 1,4% 0,8% -0,3% -1,2% -1,7%

Real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2012 prices) 75,51 69,26 66,76 61,19 62,19 56,59 55,21 53,79 52,06 50,18 48,37 61,75 -4,4% -3,1% -3,9% -4,8%

Trend in real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2012 prices) %n/n-1 -8,3% -3,6% -8,3% 1,6% -9,0% -2,4% -2,6% -3,2% -3,6% -3,6%


2009 average exchange rate (1EUR=) 8,72807 8,72807 8,72807 8,72807 8,72807 8,72807 8,72807 8,72807 8,72807 8,72807 8,72807 8,72807


Trend in total en route costs in real terms %n/n-1 -2,9% 4,3% -1,2% 12,9% -2,3% 1,4% 0,8% -0,3% -1,2% -1,7%


Trend in real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2009 prices) %n/n-1 -8,3% -3,6% -8,3% 1,6% -9,0% -2,4% -2,6% -3,2% -3,6% -3,6%


wide targets

€2

01

2 p

rice

s€

20

09

pri

ces

Justification for the level of ambition:

In the area of cost-efficiency Avinor A/S has delivered more than expected in the first reference period. This has been taken into account when setting the cost-efficiency targets for the second reference period.

Furthermore Norwegian the en-route unit cost (DUC) is close to the European average level, despite that the Norwegian price level is among the highest in Europe. If the DUC is adjusted in respect to the PPP-

model, Norway could be considered to have one of the lowest en-route unit cost in Europe. The indicative values also suggest that the NEFAB States could contribute less than the EU-wide targets in RP2.

Loca

l cu

rren

cy (

No

min

al a

nd

20

12

pri

ces)

86


Norway 2009 A 2010 A 2011 A 2012 A 2013 A 2014 F 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D

Inflation % 0,40 % 2,00 % 2,30 % 1,60 % 1,70 % 2,10 % 2,50 % 2,50 %

Inflation index (2012=100) 100,00 102,00 104,35 106,02 107,82 110,08 112,83 115,65



Difference in percentage points 0,00 0,00 0,00 -0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00

Cumulative difference in percentage points 0,00 0,00 0,00 -0,01 -0,01 -0,01 -0,01





Total en route service units (TSU) 1 845 568 2 050 929 2 202 000 2 287 878 2 367 954 2 438 992 2 499 967 2 549 966



scenario)1 845 568 2 050 929 2 176 834 2 242 613 2 305 844 2 358 496 2 411 029 2 469 915




STATFOR en route service units forecast (Low scenario) 1 845 568 2 050 929 2 140 755 2 182 512 2 202 964 2 221 790 2 240 662 2 262 981






It was suggested in the NCP Performance Group (WG) meeting on the 10th of February that each member state

should use the traffic forecast figures they find most realistic. In the first reference period Norway saw a higher

increase in traffic than what was projected in the performance plan. Norway expects that the growth rate in traffic

will be approximately at the same level in RP2. It is our understanding that there is a correlation between the

economic growth (GDP) and the growth in traffic.

It is expected that the economic growth will continue in the RP2, among other things as a result of an increase in

household consumption.

As a result of growth in en route flights as well as a trend towards heavier aircraft , contributes to growth beyond

the expected growth in aircraft movements . Avinors internal reviews and consultation with airspace users , landed

on utilizing a forecast that is above the base scenario as presented in the EUROCONTROL Seven -Year Forecast

February 2014 ( Final ). This represents an annual average growth rate of 3% per year in the period 2015-2019 , but

instead of a steady annual growth will be more slower in later period.

In summary Norway cannot identify any factors that would justify the STATFOR low forecast for RP2.

Economic Survey from Statistics Norway published 13 March 2014 shows that national inflation figures do not differ

significantly from the corresponding figures published by the IMF in April 2014 (Outlook report). Still Statistics

Norway has firsthand knowledge of national conditions and has a good credibility. Source:

http://www.ssb.no/en/forside

Inflation is usually measured in terms of the rise in consumer prices, as measured in Statistics Norway's consumer

price index. According to the Monetary Policy Regulation, the objective of monetary policy is annual consumer price

inflation of approximately 2½ per cent over time. Source: http://www.norges-bank.no/en/faq/monetary-policy/.

Bas

elin

eLo

w

87






IMPORTANT NOTE













No deviation

88

3.1.(d).2 - En Route ANS at FAB level

A - Cost efficiency KPI #1: Determined unit cost (DUC) for en route ANS aggregated at FAB level

RP1 PP

2009 A 2010 A 2011 A 2012 A 2013 A 2014 F 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D 2014 D2009A-

2019D

2014F-

2019D

2011A-

2019D

2014D-

2019D

Total en route Service Units (TSU) 2 853 634 2 949 742 3 951 640 4 067 973 4 296 014 4 504 200 4 657 119 4 805 529 4 937 109 5 065 317 5 186 609 4 372 839 6,2% 2,9% 3,5% 3,5%

Trend in Total en route Service Units (TSU)%n/n-1 3,37 % 33,97 % 2,94 % 5,61 % 4,85 % 3,40 % 3,19 % 2,74 % 2,60 % 2,39 %


Trend in total en route costs in real terms (in €2012 prices)

%n/n-1-2,68 % 22,81 % 1,26 % 6,50 % 1,58 % 0,82 % 0,75 % -0,05 % -0,77 % -1,09 %


Trend in real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2012 prices)%n/n-1 -5,85 % -8,32 % -1,64 % 0,85 % -3,11 % -2,49 % -2,36 % -2,71 % -3,29 % -3,41 %


Trend in total en route costs in real terms (in €2009 prices)

%n/n-1-2,68 % 24,77 % 1,39 % 6,09 % 1,79 % 0,76 % 0,73 % -0,04 % -0,75 % -1,06 %


Trend in real en route UCs/DUCs (in €2009 prices)%n/n-1 -5,85 % -6,86 % -1,51 % 0,46 % -2,91 % -2,54 % -2,38 % -2,70 % -3,26 % -3,37 %

Average percentage

variation per annum

€2

01

2 p

rice

s€

20

09

pri

ces

Description of benefits and synergies achieved at functional airspace block level

Historical data (actual 2009-2013, latest 2014 forecast) RP2 Performance Plan

89

3.1.(d).3 - Terminal Charging Zone #1

A - Cost efficiency KPI #2: Determined unit cost (DUC) for terminal ANS

in EUR

RP2 Performance PlanAvg pct

var p.a.

Estonia 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D2015D-

2019D

Total terminal determined costs in nominal terms (in national

currency)2 064 521 2 249 331 2 413 935 2 456 109 2 571 978 5,6%

Inflation % 3,00 % 3,10 % 3,00 % 3,00 % 3,00 %

Inflation index (Base = 100 in 2012) 109,27 112,66 116,04 119,52 123,11 3,0%

Total terminal determined costs in real terms (in national currency at

2012 prices)1 889 336 1 996 571 2 080 270 2 054 965 2 089 233 2,5%

Total terminal Service Units (TSU) used for the determined unit cost 15 436 16 551 17 205 17 722 18 642 4,8%

Real terminal DUCs (in national currency at 2012 prices) 122,40 120,63 120,91 115,96 112,07 -2,2%

2012 average exchange rate (1EUR=) 1 1 1 1 1

Total terminal determined costs in real terms (in €2012 prices) 1 889 336 1 996 571 2 080 270 2 054 965 2 089 233 2,5%

Trend in total terminal determined costs in real terms %n/n-1 5,7% 4,2% -1,2% 1,7%

Real terminal DUCs (in €2012 prices) 122,40 120,63 120,91 115,96 112,07 -2,2%

Trend in real terminal DUCs (in €2012 prices) %n/n-1 -1,4% 0,2% -4,1% -3,3%

Inflation index (Base = 100 in 2009) 123,26 127,08 130,89 134,82 138,86



Trend in total terminal determined costs in real terms %n/n-1 5,7% 4,2% -1,2% 1,7%


Trend in real terminal DUCs (in €2009 prices) %n/n-1 -1,4% 0,2% -4,1% -3,3%

Description and justification of how the local targets contribute to the

performance of the European ATM network


Estonia 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D

Inflation % 3,00 % 3,10 % 3,00 % 3,00 % 3,00 %

Inflation index (2012=100) 109,3 112,7 116,0 119,5 123,1

Eurostat HICP (actuals) and IMF CPI (forecasts) 2,80 % 2,50 % 2,40 % 2,30 % 2,20 %

Inflation index (2012=100) HICP and IMF 109,48 112,22 114,91 117,56 120,14

Difference in percentage points 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01

Cumulative difference in percentage points 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03

Justification and data source in case of deviation from inflation

references

€201

2 p

rice

s€2

009

pri

ces

The PRB has noted that based on forecast data provided in June 2013 by

States that terminal ANS costs are planned to remain fairly constant over

RP2. The PRB considers that the lower bound of the “notional” Union-

wide cost-efficiency target for terminal ANS could be a flat line (in real

terms) profile over period 2015 – 2019. This would be in line with the

preliminary overall Union-wide terminal ANS determined costs submitted

by Member States in June 2013.

Major investments to systems have been made before RP2. High traffic

growth rates are justified with low starting point and Estonian economic

forecasts. Economic assumptions and inflation are consistent with the

assumptions used for en route target setting. This means DUC reduction

of -2,2 % per year in real terms during RP2.

Inflation forecasts have been taken from September 2013 Forecast of the

Ministry of Finance of Estonia (http://www.fin.ee/official-statistics).

Forecast of the Ministry of Finance were the most updated forecast in

time of completion of Performance Plan and the Ministry of Finance has

first-hand knowledge of national conditions.

Loca

l cu

rren

cy (

No

min

al a

nd

20

12

pri

ces)

90

C - Service Units forecast for terminal

Estonia 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D

Total terminal service units (TNSU) 15 436 16 551 17 205 17 722 18 642

Year on Year variation TNSU 7,2% 4,0% 3,0% 5,2%

STATFOR terminal service units forecast (Baseline scenario) 15 436 16 551 17 205 17 722 18 642

Year on Year variation TNSU STATFOR 7,2% 4,0% 3,0% 5,2%

Difference in percentage 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

Cumulative difference in percentage 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

Explanation of the differences (if any), justification, rationale and

source

D - Alert thresholds (terminal service units)

Estonia 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D





IMPORTANT NOTEThe data and justifications for the cost-efficiency targets at local level are split into two distinct parts of the performance plan, aiming at

optimising workload and avoiding duplication of reporting. They comprise:

1.In the body of the performance plan document, the information to be presented at charging zone level (some of the data requested being

pre-filled by the PRB):•The targets with a description of the contribution to, and consistency with, the EU-wide target and/or their contribution to

the performance of the European ATM network;:•The entries and justification requiring data from external sources i.e.

oThe traffic forecast used and, if applicable, their justification against STATFORoThe inflation assumptions used and, if applicable, their justification against Eurostat/ IMF.

•The local alert thresholds, if any, and their justification.•A presentation of the consolidation of the targets at FAB level.

2.In Annex C, the information needed at the level of the entities submitted to the performance scheme within the charging zones (ANSPs

including MET providers, National authorities…), as follows:•The data and justifications in the reporting tables and additional information, as per Annexes II, III, VI and VII of the charging

Regulation, at entity level plus a consolidation at charging zone level;•The data and justifications relating to cost-efficiency required at entity level for the purpose of the Performance Plans, as per

Article 11 (3) and Annexes II and IV of the performance Regulation,.

No difference

No difference

91



in EUR


var p.a.

Finland 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D2015D-

2019D


currency)14 850 590 15 150 612 15 452 687 15 761 914 16 079 096 2,0%

Inflation % 1,54 % 1,70 % 1,90 % 2,00 % 2,00 %



2012 prices)14 070 209 14 114 519 14 127 513 14 127 668 14 129 376 0,1%





Trend in total terminal determined costs in real terms %n/n-1 0,3% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0%


Trend in real terminal DUCs (in €2012 prices) %n/n-1 -2,0% -1,9% -2,0% -2,9%




Trend in total terminal determined costs in real terms %n/n-1 0,3% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0%




Finland 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D

Inflation % 1,54 % 1,70 % 1,90 % 2,00 % 2,00 %

Inflation index (2012=100) 105,5 107,3 109,4 111,6 113,8






references

€201

2 p

rice

s€2

009

pri

ces

No difference.



The PRB has noted that based on forecast data provided in June 2013 by

States that terminal ANS costs are planned to remain fairly constant over

RP2. The PRB considers that the lower bound of the “notional” Union-

wide cost-efficiency target for terminal ANS could be a flat line (in real

terms) profile over period 2015 – 2019. This would be in line with the

preliminary overall Union-wide terminal ANS determined costs submitted

by Member States in June 2013.

In the target setting, Finland decided to aim to the flat line profile as PRB

suggested. As traffic forecast Finland is using Statfor baseline in line with

the en route forecast. Economic assumptions, inflation and traffic trends

are consistent with the assumptions used for en route target setting. This

means DUC reduction of -2,2 % ( +0,1 % DC) per year in real terms during

RP2. If year 2014 is used as a starting point with the same assumptions as

used with en route, the DUC reduction is -3,1 % (-0,8 % DC) Cost

allocation between en route and terminal ANS is going to be the same as

in RP1.

If we combine en route and TN-costs, Finland will contribute to the yearly

reduction of -2,1 % of DC and -4,0 % of DUC in real terms during RP2

(2014 – 2019).

Loca

l cu

rren

cy (

No

min

al a

nd

20

12

pri

ces)

92


Finland 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D





Difference in percentage 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

Cumulative difference in percentage 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00


source


Finland 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D











The data and justifications for the cost-efficiency targets at local level are split into two distinct parts of the performance plan, aiming at





IMPORTANT NOTE

93



in EUR


var p.a.

Latvia 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D2015D-

2019D


currency)7 583 029 7 698 210 7 903 554 8 108 786 8 262 790 2,2%

Inflation % 2,48 % 2,33 % 2,30 % 2,30 % 2,30 %



2012 prices)7 247 681 7 190 587 7 216 413 7 237 343 7 208 989 -0,1%




Total terminal determined costs in real terms (in €2012 prices) 7 247 681 7 190 587 7 216 413 7 237 343 7 208 989 -0,1%

Trend in total terminal determined costs in real terms %n/n-1 -0,8% 0,4% 0,3% -0,4%






Trend in total terminal determined costs in real terms %n/n-1 -0,8% 0,4% 0,3% -0,4%






Latvia 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D

Inflation % 2,48 % 2,33 % 2,30 % 2,30 % 2,30 %

Inflation index (2012=100) 104,6 107,1 109,5 112,0 114,6






references


Latvia 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D





Difference in percentage -0,01 -0,01 0,00 0,00

Cumulative difference in percentage -0,09 -0,10 -0,09 -0,10


source

€201

2 p

rice

s€2

009

pri

ces

PRB considers that terminal ANS could be flat over the period 2015-2019.

This would be in line with the preliminary overall Union-wide terminal

ANS costs submitted by Member states in June 2013.

On the other hand, it is expected that improvements and investments

planned in RP2 will positively affect en route and terminal ANS

performance regarding safety, increasing capacity, increasing revenues.

EUROSTAT HICP (actuals) and IMF CPI (forecasts)

No difference

Loca

l cu

rren

cy (

No

min

al a

nd

20

12

pri

ces)

94


Latvia 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D
















No difference

IMPORTANT NOTE

95



in NOK


var p.a.

Norway 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D2015D-

2019D


currency)498 031 263 495 968 632 500 784 828 505 570 149 510 317 178 0,6%

Inflation % 1,60 % 1,70 % 2,10 % 2,50 % 2,50 %



2012 prices)469 311 852 459 555 717 454 474 357 447 626 489 440 809 229 -1,6%


Real terminal DUCs (in national currency at 2012 prices) 1 801,56 1 715,92 1 642,62 1 571,30 1 513,09 -4,3%

2012 average exchange rate (1EUR=) 7,47413 7,47413 7,47413 7,47413 7,47413


Trend in total terminal determined costs in real terms %n/n-1 -2,1% -1,1% -1,5% -1,5%




2009 average exchange rate (1EUR=) 8,72807 8,72807 8,72807 8,72807 8,72807


Trend in total terminal determined costs in real terms %n/n-1 -2,1% -1,1% -1,5% -1,5%






Norway 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D

Inflation % 1,60 % 1,70 % 2,10 % 2,50 % 2,50 %

Inflation index (2012=100) 106,1 107,9 110,2 112,9 115,8



Difference in percentage points -0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00

Cumulative difference in percentage points -0,01 -0,01 -0,01 -0,01


references


Norway 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D





Difference in percentage -0,01 0,01 0,00 0,00

€201

2 p

rice

s€2

009

pri

ces

Economic Survey from Statistics Norway published 13.March 2014 shows

that national inflation figures do not differ significantly from the

corresponding figures published by the IMF in April 2014 (Outlook

report). Still Statistics Norway has firsthand knowledge of national

conditions and has a good credibility. Source:

http://www.ssb.no/en/forside

Inflation is usually measured in terms of the rise in consumer prices, as

measured in Statistics Norway's consumer price index. According to the

Monetary Policy Regulation, the objective of monetary policy is annual

consumer price inflation of approximately 2½ per cent over time. Source:

http://www.norges-bank.no/en/faq/monetary-policy/.

Loca

l cu

rren

cy (

No

min

al a

nd

20

12

pri

ces)

96

Cumulative difference in percentage -0,02 -0,01 -0,01 -0,01


source


Norway 2015 D 2016 D 2017 D 2018 D 2019 D
















IMPORTANT NOTE

It was suggested in the NCP Performance Group (WG) meeting on the

10th of February that each member state should use the traffic forecast

figures they find most realistic. In the first reference period Norway saw a

higher increase in traffic than what was projected in the performance

plan. Norway expects that the growth rate in traffic will be approximately

at the same level in RP2. It is our understanding that there is a correlation

between the economic growth (GDP) and the growth in traffic.

It is expected that the economic growth will continue or even increase in

the RP2, among other things as a result of an increase in household

consumption. In summary Norway has relied on the internal forecasts

presented by the ANSP, in accordance with the ANSP’s internal long term

financial plans. Theforecast is only slightly different from STATFOR

baseline.

97

3.2 - Consistency of the performance targets with the relevant Union-wide performance targets or,

when there is no Union-wide target, contribution to the performance of the European ATM network

This section has been integrated within each individual KPI.

98

3.3 - Description of KPAs interdependencies and trade-offs

In setting the performance targets, NEFAB recognises the importance of understanding the interdependencies between different KPAs, as

performance improvements in one area could have negative consequences in other areas.

Safety

Safety establishes mandatory requirements in ATM operations and is a KPA to which assessments of all the other performance areas should be

linked. Today, we consider the NEFAB states to be above the minimum acceptable air safety levels, as defined by EASA. However, within these

boundaries, there is still room for improving safety performance levels. This view is supported by the results of the first monitoring period in

RP1.

NEFAB recognises that significant efforts will be required within all NEFAB states and most ANSPs during RP2 in order to reach the safety targets.

Safety will continue to have primacy and will not be compromised while trying to achieve a target in a different KPA.

NEFAB recognises that there is a potential conflict between safety and cost efficiency. It’s however our opinion that the implementation of

safety KPAs can be achieved at an affordable price. Therefore, Safety targets, even if challenging, can be met without unduly affecting cost-

efficiency.

The biggest challenge is keeping a focus on safety while trying to achieve the targets of different KPIs. In RP2 NEFAB expects ANSPs to undergo

major organisational and/or technical changes. NEFAB recognises the importance of identifying and managing safety risks in the change

management process.

NEFAB recognises that certain interdependencies between safety and other KPAs may exist, but is of the opinion that the relationship between

these KPAs is controllable.

Capacity

Providing greater capacity may entail extra costs, through investment in new technology, procedures or extra staff. It may also involve reducing

cost by deploying ATCOs according to traffic demand. Optimum capacity is defined as when the marginal cost of additional capacity equals the

cost of additional delays.

In setting the capacity targets for RP2 NEFAB has focused on the indicative values produced by the PRB. The capacity targets are less strict than

in the first reference period. It’s our opinion that some ANSPs have excessive capacity for long periods in order to meet the capacity target in

peak hours. With less strict capacity targets the ANSP should be able to adjust the workforce to the actual traffic demands and the cost optimum

capacity.

Environment

NEFAB recognises that there are some interdependencies between en-route capacity and flight-efficiency: more structured routes, such as one-

way routes, offer more capacity but are less efficient from the environmental and operational perspectives. NEFAB doesn’t believe that this will

be a hard constraint, as a high level of flight-efficiency can be achieved with Free Route Airspace.

NEFAB recognises that there are some interdependency between flight-efficiency and cost-efficiency. Sophisticated flight planning systems take

unit rates into account; they can plan longer but cheaper routes as they fly round more expensive ANSPs. This wastes capacity already made

available in the States with higher costs - and drives up costs in those States which used to have lower costs, as demand on non-traditional route

structures increases.

99

3.4 - Contribution of each air navigation service provider

This section has been integrated within each individual KPI.

100

SECTION 4: INCENTIVE SCHEMES

RT ref. AI ref.


Regulation


Annex C




4. INCENTIVE SCHEMES 4

4.1. Description and explanation of the incentive

schemes to be applied on air navigation service

providers.

4.1

101

Number of incentive schemes 4

Entity being incentivised Finavia

KPI description Environment KPA / Corrective action plan

Type of incentive Corrective action plan

Formula Union-wide targets

Justification According to regulation 390 / 2013

Description of performance variation

levels and the applicable level of

bonuses and penalties

In case that Finavia corporation is unable to deliver required performance in the environment KPA,

corrective action plan with deadlines and associated measures is required.

Additional comments Required performance is according to Commission decision

Entity being incentivised EANS








In case that EANS is unable to deliver required performance in the environment KPA, corrective action plan

with deadlines and associated measures is required.


Entity being incentivised Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme (LGS)








In case the LGS would be unable to deliver the required performance in the environment KPA, a corrective

action plan with deadlines and the associated measures would be required.


Entity being incentivised Avinor








In case that Avinor is unable to deliver required performance in the environment KPA, corrective action

plan with deadlines and associated measures is required.


<Incentive scheme / Environment / Norway>

4 - INCENTIVE SCHEMES

4.1 - Incentive schemes for the environment targets

<Incentive scheme / Environment / Latvia>

<Incentive scheme / Environment / Estonia>

<Incentive scheme / Environment / Finland>

102

Number of incentive schemes 8

Entity being incentivised Finavia Corporation

KPI description En route ATFM delay

Type of incentive Financial nature

Formula 2015-2019 Dead band: 0,05min/flt - 0,08min/flt





2015-2019

0,02min / flt or better: Bonus: 1 % of the revenues from air navigation services in year n

0,03min / flt: Bonus: 0,5 % of the revenues from air navigation services in year n

0,04min / flt: Bonus: 0,2% of the revenues from air navigation services in year n

0,09min / flt: Penalty: 0,2 % of the revenues from air navigation services in year n


0,11min / flt or worse: Penalty: Penalty: 1% of the revenues from air navigation services in year n

Additional comments

This incentive scheme has been set to encourage ANSP to perform better in the area of capacity, while at

the same time less demanding actual capacity target has positive impact in the area of cost-efficiency.

Entity being incentivised Finavia

KPI description ATFM arrival delay per flight


Formula

Target:

2015-2016 0,13min/flt

2017-2019 0,14min/flt

2015-2019 Dead band: 0,10 min/flt – 0,14 min/flt





2015-2019

0,09 min / flt or better: Bonus: 1 % of the revenues from EFHK TNC services in year n

0,15 min / flt or worse: Penalty: Penalty: 1% of the revenues from EFHK TNC services in year n

Additional comments



Entity being incentivised LGS



FormulaTarget:

2015-2019 0,04 min/flt





2015-2019








Additional comments



Entity being incentivised LGS



<Incentive scheme / Capacity En route / Finland>

4.1 - Incentive schemes for the capacity targets

<Incentive scheme / Capacity TN / Finland>

<Insert Incentive Scheme /Capacity En route /Latvia>

<Incentive scheme / Capacity TN / Latvia>

103

Formula

Target:

2015-2019 0,04 min/flt





2015-2019








Additional comments

Entity being incentivised Avinor AS



Formula

2015-2016 Dead band: 0,03min/flt - 0,13min/flt






2015 - 2016:

Over/under-achievement (Percentage) Aggregated Penalties/Bonuses (Percentage)

0,00 min / flt or better Bonus: 1 % of the revenues from air navigation services in year n

0,01 min / flt Bonus: 0,5 % of the revenues from air navigation services in year n

0,02 min / flt Bonus: 0,2% of the revenues from air navigation services in year n

Dead band 0,05 min / flt – 0,13 min / flt

0,14 min / flt Penalty: 0,2 % of the revenues from air navigation services in year n


0,16 min / flt or worse Penalty: 1% of the revenues from air navigation services in year n

2017 - 2019:

Over/under-achievement (Percentage) Aggregated Penalties/Bonuses (Percentage)

0,00 min / flt or better Bonus: 1 % of the revenues from air navigation services in year n

0,01 min / flt Bonus: 0,5 % of the revenues from air navigation services in year n

0,02 min / flt Bonus: 0,2% of the revenues from air navigation services in year n

Dead band 0,05 min / flt – 0,14 min / flt



0,17 min / flt or worse Penalty: 1% of the revenues from air navigation services in year n

Additional comments



Entity being incentivised Avinor AS

KPI description ATFM arrival delay pr. flight


Formula 2015-2019 Dead band: 0,31 min/flt – 0,89 min/flt





2015-2019

0,30 min / flt or better: Bonus: 1 % of the revenues from TNC services in year n

0,90 min / flt or worse: Penalty: Penalty: 1% of the revenues from TNC services in year n

Additional comments






Formula2015-2016 Dead band: 0,05min/flt - 0,13min/flt


<Insert Incentive Scheme /Capacity TN/Norway>

<Incentive scheme / Capacity En route / Estonia>

<Insert Incentive Scheme /Capacity En route /Norway>

104





2015-2016







2017-2019







Additional comments






Formula

Target:

2015-2019 0,00 min/flt

2015-2019 Dead band: 0,00 min/flt – 0,10min/flt





2015-2019

0,10 min / flt or worse: Penalty: Penalty: 1% of the revenues from EETN TNC services in year n

Additional comments

<Incentive scheme / Capacity TN / Estonia>

105

4.1 - Incentive schemes for the cost-efficiency targets

The parameters used by the Member States in the setting of the risk-sharing mechanism defined in Article 13 and 14 of the charging Regulation

will be detailed under lines 3.13 and 3.14 of Reporting Table 2 as per Annex VI of the same Regulation.

Therefore, the information is included in the Reporting Tables attached in Annex C.

106

SECTION 5: MILITARY DIMENSION OF THE PLAN

RT ref. AI ref.


Regulation


Annex C




5. MILITARY DIMENSION OF THE PLAN

Description of the civil-military dimension of the

plan describing the performance of FUA application

in order to increase capacity with due regard to

military mission effectiveness, and if deemed

appropriate, relevant performance indicators and

targets consistent with the indicators and targets of

the performance plan.

5

107

5 - MILITARY DIMENSION OF THE PLAN

Additional (Key) Performance Indicators (and targets) relevant to civil military performance

The NEFAB Agreement reiterates the importance of civil-military cooperation and application of FUA, while safeguarding national sovereignty rights.

“The objective of NEFAB is to achieve optimum performance in the areas relating to safety, environmental sustainability, capacity, cost-effectiveness,

flight efficiency and military mission effectiveness, by the design of airspace and the organisation of air traffic management in the airspace concerned

regardless of existing borders.”

Implementation of the SES regulations and NEFAB Agreement is seen as the key driver for achievement of NEFAB civil-military performance objectives.

The Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Latvia and the Kingdom of Norway are full NATO Member States. The Republic of Finland is a member of

NATO’s Partnership for Peace. The organisation, the equipment and the training requirements of the national armed forces differ among the

Contracting Sates. Norway and Finland use their fighter aircraft to perform air-policing missions, whilst Estonia and Latvia in their airspace

accommodate the NATO Member States’ fighters in support of their air policing operation. Such diversity results in different airspace requirements for

military operations and training. The NEFAB performance plan should duly addresse those different training and operational requirements.

The FUA concept has been implemented at national level. The national FUA processes and procedures are not harmonised among the Contracting

States. Individual solutions for implementation of the FUA concept are the main constraints on effective and consistent application of the FUA concept

across NEFAB. There is also a lack of interoperability among current ASM systems supporting daily airspace allocation. The lack of interoperable among

ASM systems is the main shortcoming.

Civil-military cooperation in ATC provision is very well established at national level within the Contracting States. In addition to service provision to

civilian air traffic, all NEFAB ANSPs provide en-route services to military traffic. Military traffic operates either within segregated military training or

exercise areas (OAT) or as regular traffic in the same airspace as civilian traffic (GAT). OAT service provision is governed by national regulations and is

not harmonised among the Contracting States. This is a shortcoming which may limit cross-border OAT service provision and operations.

Estonia and Latvia have accommodated cross-border military operation and training within the scope of NATO air policing activities. Norway and

Finland practice a cross-border military training activities in the northern part of Finland and Norway. However, there is an interest for regular cross-

border military training

A full commitment to implementation of the NEFAB performance plan with well-defined performance objectives for the second reference period is an

opportunity for all Contracting States to achieve NEFAB’s high-level objectives. However, the lack of common oversight criteria and of a common

performance monitoring process at NEFAB level is a shortcoming which could downgrade the opportunity.

Common Airspace policy

The Contracting States consider that NEFAB airspace should not be designated as either purely civil or purely military, but should be considered as a

single continuum in which all users’ requirements have to be accommodated to the maximum extent possible. Within that environment, civil-military

cooperation and coordination should be based on a civil-military performance-based partnership.

“Military airspace users constitute a different customer segment for the NEFAB ANSPs. The military depend on airspace structures suitable for their

different types of operations. The airspace must be of sufficient dimensions and located so as to support the military missions as efficiently as possible.

On the basis of these facts, good dialogue and structured consultation mechanisms are of importance for military airspace users as well as for civil

users. The NEFAB ANSPs will seek solutions where both flight efficiency for civil users and military mission effectiveness are ensured”.

Military users’ requirements and mission effectiveness will need to be assured through collaborative civil-military airspace design. Increased modularity

in area design and optimised ASM scenarios are aimed at reducing the network effect of military airspace reservations.

108

5 - MILITARY DIMENSION OF THE PLAN

Additional (Key) Performance Indicators (and targets) relevant to civil military performance

5. Military dimension of the plan

The NEFAB Agreement reiterates the importance of civil-military cooperation and application of FUA, while safeguarding national sovereignty

rights. “The objective of NEFAB is to achieve optimum performance in the areas relating to safety, environmental sustainability, capacity, cost-

effectiveness, flight efficiency and military mission effectiveness, by the design of airspace and the organisation of air traffic management in the

airspace concerned regardless of existing borders. ”

5.1 Application of FUA legislation to improve capacity

5.1.1 FUA application

The Contracting States shall cooperate at legal, operational and technical level for efficient and consistent application of the concept of flexible

use of airspace (FUA) taking into account both civil and military needs. The ultimate goal is to apply a performance-driven FUA across NEFAB

airspace. Application of FUA should contribute to EU-wide and NEFAB performance outcomes while safeguarding national security and defence

interests. The application shall be based on the following principles:

- Coordination between civil and military authorities shall be organised at the strategic, pre-tactical and tactical levels of airspace management

through the establishment of agreements and procedures in order to increase safety and airspace capacity, and to improve the efficiency and

flexibility of aircraft operations.

- Consistency between airspace management, air traffic flow management and air traffic services shall be established and maintained at the

three levels of ASM in order to ensure efficiency in airspace planning, allocation and use for the benefit of all users.

- The reservation of airspace for exclusive or specific use by categories of users shall be of a temporary nature, applied only during limited

periods of time on the basis of actual use, and the airspace concerned shall be released as soon as the activity requiring its reservation ceases.

- The Contracting States shall develop cooperation for the efficient and consistent application of the FUA concept across national borders and/or

the boundaries of flight information regions, and shall address cross-border activities when and where these are justified by operational needs.

- Cross-border cooperation shall cover all relevant legal, operational and technical matters.

- Air traffic service units, military control units and airspace users shall make the best use of the available airspace.

- The NSAs of the Contracting States regard EUROCONTROL’s Specifications for the application of the FUA, as acceptable means of compliance in

support of implementation and application of the Regulation (EC) No 2150/2005.

- The Contracting States shall agree on common performance objectives, indicators and targets as appropriate, applicable for all three level of

FUA. NSAs shall carry out performance monitoring, applying a consistence methodology.

5.1.2 Capacity KPA

The main expectation of GAT airspace users and ANSPs with regard to FUA is maximisation of airspace capacity for GAT IFR fights. This should be

achieved through the optimisation of airspace planning and utilisation across all FUA levels. The impact of FUA on ATC capacity should be

addressed at NEFAB and local levels alike.

- More efficient SUA booking contributes to network capacity.

- Timely release of allocated SUA for civil use improves local ATC capacity.

On the other hand, capacity demand for GAT IFR flights cannot overrule national security and defence needs. Unambiguous criteria and priority

rules regarding airspace allocation/release must be established at national level.

5.1.3 Environment KPA

Optimisation of SUA capacity available for planning of military training in accordance with actual user’s requirements should improve CDR1 and

free route segment availability. Consequently, it should contribute to improve en-route flight efficiency. More efficient SUA booking, on the basis

of actual user needs, increases CDR2 and free route segment availability.

5.1.4 Performance enablers

In order to support a consistent application of the concept of FUA and civil-military performance based partnership the Contracting States plan

to implement LARA as NEFAB wide ASM system and PRISMIL as NEFAB civil-military performance monitoring system.

5.2 Additional (Key) Performance Indicators (and targets)

The NEFAB civil-military performance framework addresses performance of FUA operations at all level of ASM and military mission

effectiveness. In order to support the establishment of a civil-military performance-based partnership, the performance measurements of

military mission effectiveness are integrated with FUA performance monitoring. NEFAB agreed on common set of civil-military performance

objectives and performance indicators that should be monitored at national level. Performance monitoring at NEFAB level should be addressed

as soon as all Contracting States implement PRISMIL.

5.2.1 Strategic level

Strategic airspace management performance objective is:

To optimise available SUA capacity for planning of military training in accordance with actual user requirements.

Optimisation of SUA capacity available for training in accordance with specific user requirements should improve CDR and free route segment

availability. Consequently, it should improve en-route flight efficiency. Performance indicator (PI) in use:

- Percentage of SUA capacity requested.

It should be monitored at national level. The target is at national discretion.

5.2.2 Pre-tactical level

NEFAB agreed on three performances objectives at pre-tactical airspace management Level 2.

The first pre-tactical performance objective is:

To improve efficiency of SUA booking procedures

It encourages users to request and allocate SUA only during limited periods of time on the basis of actual use. PI: The effectiveness of booking

procedures will be used for monitoring purpose. The objective contributes to ATC capacity and flight efficiency. It should be monitored at

national and NEFAB level. The target is at national discretion

The second pre-tactical performance objective is:

To maximise GAT planning efficiency for available SUA. Time planned vs. time used by GAT for available SUA will be used to monitor the

objective. The objective contributed to ATC capacity encouraging GAT users to plan available SUA in timely manner. It should be monitored at

national and NEFAB level. The target is at national discretion.

The third pre-tactical performance objective is:

To ensure allocation of an optimum airspace dimension for training within an acceptable distance of an airbase during the whole reference

period.

The objective safeguards security and defence policy interests for military missions requiring SUA allocation. On the other hand, it confirms that

military airspace users request airspace for a training based on actual needs, leaving the rest of the airspace to ATM system to maximize capacity

and optimize flight efficiency. Two PIs will be used:

- Optimum SUA dimensions vs. allocated SUA structure and

- Average allocated transit time

It should be monitored at national level (Finland and Norway). The targets are at national discretion

5.2.3 Tactical level

Two performance objectives are agreed at tactical airspace management Level 3.

The first objective at tactical level is:

To ensure timely release of allocated SUA for civil use on cancellation of military use before the scheduled start.

The objective requests military users to releases allocated SUA in timely manner. It should contribute to the maximisation ATC capacity and

optimisation of ASM processes at national and FAB level. PI: Percentage of SUA time released to GAT prior to allocated start time will be used for

the monitoring purpose. It should be monitored at national level. The target is at national discretion

The second objective at tactical level is: To maximise GAT use of released SUA.

It requests ATS units and users to make the best use of the released airspace. The objective will be monitored by PI: Released SUA time used by

GAT. It should be monitored at national and NEFAB level. The target is at national discretion

109

5.2 Additional (Key) Performance Indicators (and targets)

The NEFAB civil-military performance framework addresses performance of FUA operations at all level of ASM and military mission

effectiveness. In order to support the establishment of a civil-military performance-based partnership, the performance measurements of

military mission effectiveness are integrated with FUA performance monitoring. NEFAB agreed on common set of civil-military performance

objectives and performance indicators that should be monitored at national level. Performance monitoring at NEFAB level should be addressed

as soon as all Contracting States implement PRISMIL.

5.2.1 Strategic level

Strategic airspace management performance objective is:

To optimise available SUA capacity for planning of military training in accordance with actual user requirements.

Optimisation of SUA capacity available for training in accordance with specific user requirements should improve CDR and free route segment

availability. Consequently, it should improve en-route flight efficiency. Performance indicator (PI) in use:

- Percentage of SUA capacity requested.

It should be monitored at national level. The target is at national discretion.

5.2.2 Pre-tactical level

NEFAB agreed on three performances objectives at pre-tactical airspace management Level 2.

The first pre-tactical performance objective is:

To improve efficiency of SUA booking procedures

It encourages users to request and allocate SUA only during limited periods of time on the basis of actual use. PI: The effectiveness of booking

procedures will be used for monitoring purpose. The objective contributes to ATC capacity and flight efficiency. It should be monitored at

national and NEFAB level. The target is at national discretion

The second pre-tactical performance objective is:

To maximise GAT planning efficiency for available SUA. Time planned vs. time used by GAT for available SUA will be used to monitor the

objective. The objective contributed to ATC capacity encouraging GAT users to plan available SUA in timely manner. It should be monitored at

national and NEFAB level. The target is at national discretion.

The third pre-tactical performance objective is:

To ensure allocation of an optimum airspace dimension for training within an acceptable distance of an airbase during the whole reference

period.

The objective safeguards security and defence policy interests for military missions requiring SUA allocation. On the other hand, it confirms that

military airspace users request airspace for a training based on actual needs, leaving the rest of the airspace to ATM system to maximize capacity

and optimize flight efficiency. Two PIs will be used:

- Optimum SUA dimensions vs. allocated SUA structure and

- Average allocated transit time

It should be monitored at national level (Finland and Norway). The targets are at national discretion

5.2.3 Tactical level

Two performance objectives are agreed at tactical airspace management Level 3.

The first objective at tactical level is:

To ensure timely release of allocated SUA for civil use on cancellation of military use before the scheduled start.

The objective requests military users to releases allocated SUA in timely manner. It should contribute to the maximisation ATC capacity and

optimisation of ASM processes at national and FAB level. PI: Percentage of SUA time released to GAT prior to allocated start time will be used for

the monitoring purpose. It should be monitored at national level. The target is at national discretion

The second objective at tactical level is: To maximise GAT use of released SUA.

It requests ATS units and users to make the best use of the released airspace. The objective will be monitored by PI: Released SUA time used by

GAT. It should be monitored at national and NEFAB level. The target is at national discretion

110

SECTION 6: ANALYSIS OF SENSITIVITY AND COMPARISON WITH THE

PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE PLAN

RT ref. AI ref.


Regulation


Annex C




6. ANALYSIS OF SENSITIVITY AND COMPARISON WITH

THE PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE PLAN

6

6.1. Sensitivity to external assumptions. 6.1

6.2. Comparison with previous performance plan. 6.2

111

6 - ANALYSIS OF SENSITIVITY AND COMPARISON WITH THE PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE PLAN

6.1 - Sensitivity to external assumptionsFINLAND:

Analysis of different traffic outcomes to en-route unit costs

There are three forecast scenarios. High is based on assumptions of strong economic growth. Low is based on assumptions of weak economic

growth and according to Statfor the base is the most-likely of the 3 scenarios representing an intermediate point between high and low. Below is

an analysis how different traffic scenarios (using rounded forecasts) will affect unit cost. In this analysis we have used Statfor base traffic

forecast from February 2014. Comparison is made against base forecast which Finland has used in DUC calculations. We have used elasticity of

0,4076 between costs and traffic which is the European average.

On average the en-route unit cost with different traffic scenarios would be:

high traffic: 48,99 €

- average yearly service units 879 200 during RP2

base traffic: 50,77 €


low traffic: 52,62 €


If high traffic will come true instead of base the actual unit cost will be 3,5 % lower on average during RP2. On the other hand, if low traffic will

come true the actual unit price will be 3,6 % higher than expected during RP2.

Analysis of different traffic outcomes to TN unit costs

On average the TN unit cost with different traffic scenarios would be:

high traffic: 131,35 €


base traffic: 136,87 €


low traffic: 142,28 €


2015 2015 2017 2018 2019

high 53,25670036 51,33407674 49,51405948 47,43408495 43,40134006

base 53,83552403 52,41880323 50,96576244 49,2496381 47,38357684

low 54,78445001 53,90132873 52,86732255 51,52547521 50,02294442

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

€

Finland's forecasted en-route unit cost with different traffic scenarios

112

NORWAY:

" To adopt the best practice and a global performance into quantitative estimate of the costs proves very difficult. There are many variable

parameters in terms of airspace structure, traffic composition, the difference between the traffic level in peak hours and outside peak hours and

especially the choices in the formulation of regulations and layout of sector configurations, to be able to do anything else than an approximate

estimate calculations.

Our overall assessment is that the costs are likely to increase more than proportionally if one moves in the direction of zero tolerance for delays.

In this respect, we consider the current capacity measurements of 0.05 minutes as very demanding. It will be possible to operate within a slacker

capacity targets without delays for airlines that reason becomes unacceptable, while this may have a cost beneficial effect of air navigation

organization.

A Service Level Agreement is currently established for the en route service in collaboration with the NHO Luftfart regarding minimum delays in

peak-hours in the Oslo/Gardermoen ATM-area."

ESTONIA:

It is not expected that significant cost savings could be made in the event of traffic being lower than expected. On the other hand, it is also

expected that traffic growth substantially higher than projected could be handled without significant extra costs.

LATVIA:

Various traffic scenarios impact on the ne-route service unit costs

Assumptions used in the analysis of price elasticity:

- Annual service units forecast (STATFOR, September 2013) scenarios – high, baseline, low;

- Determined costs in nominal terms, inflation % and inflation index – as used for calculation of DUC;

- Price elasticity ratio - 0.4;

Forecasted en-route unit cost with different traffic scenarios would be following:

2015 2015 2017 2018 2019

high 141,9275212 136,5439377 133,0822284 128,140615 117,0653944

base 142,5595154 139,7518303 137,1643663 134,4251668 130,4690037

low 144,9347351 143,8826736 142,8177032 141,0749719 138,6795687

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

€

Finland's forecasted TN unit cost with different traffic scenarios

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019

STATFOR Low – high DUC (Real Terms, 2012) 28.59

27.67

27.37

27.18

27.06

STATFOR base - PROPOSED DUC (Real terms, 2012)

27.19

26.36

26.01

25.57

25.18

STATFOR High – low DUC (Real Terms, 2012) 26.29

25.14

24.47

23.78

23.17

113

Forecasted terminal ANS unit cost with different traffic scenarios would be following:

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019

HIGH UR (Real Terms, 2012)

PROPOSED UR (Real terms,2012)

LOW UR (Real Terms, 2012)

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019

STATFOR Low – high DUC (Real Terms, 2012) 237.69

236.42

239.30

241.84

241.82

STATFOR base - PROPOSED DUC (Real terms, 2012)

226.40

221.85

220.62

218.61

213.90

STATFOR High – low DUC (Real Terms, 2012) 208.76

198.24

191.28

184.72

176.25

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019

HIGH UR (Real Terms,2012)

PROPOSED UR (Realterms, 2012)

LOW UR (Real Terms,2012)

114

6.2 - Comparison with previous performance planFinland:

The overall performance of Finland is very good. Since the cost-efficiency and capacity are strongly interrelated and despite of the excellent

historical achievements in capacity during RP1, Finland needs to aim for less challenging capacity targets for RP 2, thus allowing slightly more

average delay per flight. Keeping up an extremely high capacity might lead to situation where there is actually extensive over capacity in the

times of lower traffic flows.

In the RP1 performance plan Finland decided to use STATFOR high case traffic forecast due to unexpected, strong growth in traffic before RP1.

However, traffic volume has not increased as expected. Economy in Finland has been sluggish and exceptionally many companies have ceased

operations to and from Finland. The difference in TSUs has already generated significant losses during 2012- 2013 and significant losses are

expected also in 2014 from the traffic risk sharing (around -1,5 M€2009 per year) for Finavia.

Finland has decided to use for traffic assumption STATFOR baseline for RP2 (for2015 Eurocontrol Two-Year Intermediate Forecast is used (May

2014)). Economy in Finland is showing now some recovery (although slow) and because of the recent activity (for example several new AOC

applications) it is expected that baseline forecast would be more realistic than low case.

During RP1 Finland´s information regarding civ / mil airspace usage is based on manual data collection. It has been planned that LARA/PRISMIL

will be in use in NEFAB area during 2015 which would help with the monitoring process.

Estonia:

In RP1 overall performance of Estonia is very good. In the first two years of RP1 actual traffic volumes were below NPP forecast. For RP2 Estonia

is decided to use STATFOR baseline traffic forecast .

Latvia:

In RP1 overall performance of Latvia (including cost-efficiency KPI) is very good. In the first two years of RP1 actual traffic volumes were close to

those planned in NPP and in 2012 Latvia had lower unit costs than the DUR planned in the adopted NPP.

Performance delivered by LGS in RP1 and local circumstances in economic development will be taken into consideration when setting the cost-

efficiency targets for the second reference period.

Norway:

Norway was only slightly affected by the financial crises and the Euro debt crises. In contrast to many other European countries Norway

therefore saw a higher increase in traffic than what was projected in the performance plan. Despite of this Avinor A/S reduced its cost base. The

cost savings can be explained by understaffing and postponed investments. The costs are expected to increase in 2013 and 2014.



been resolved.








period. Even though Avinor A/S delivered more than expected in the area of cost efficiency in the first reference period, the Norwegian Civil

Aviation Authority believe that there are still rooms for cost efficiency improvements. The strong contribution in the first reference period can

therefore not be an excuse for not contributing to the EU-wide targets in the second reference period.

115

SECTION 7: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PERFORMANCE PLAN

RT ref. AI ref.


Regulation


Annex C




7. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PERFORMANCE PLAN

Description of the measures put in place by the

national supervisory authorities to achieve the

performance targets, such as:

(i) monitoring mechanisms to ensure that the ANS

safety programmes and business plans are

implemented;

(i i) measures to monitor and report on the

implementation of the performance plans including

how to address the situation if targets are not

reached during the reference period.

7

116

Date of implementation Periodicity Focal point

Airport dataflow

Civil Military dataflow

Number of other dataflows Click to select number of other dataflows

Additional comments

7 - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PERFORMANCE PLAN

NSA commitment for data provisionActive

Inactive

Ongoing performance monitoring and reporting

The NSA Committee (NSAC) is responsible for monitoring and overseeing NEFAB performance. The NSAs are responsible for performance

oversight and monitoring at national level.

A NEFAB civil-military performance dashboard could provide access to FAB-relevant performance information while national performance

dashboards will provide access to national data.

Civil-military data collection and validation

The NSAC shall collect data and exchange relevant information among the NSAs and with the NEFAB Council in relation to performance

planning and performance monitoring.

Data collection, validation, examination, evaluation and dissemination relevant to civil-military performance monitoring at NEFAB level

should be carried out via PRISMIL in accordance with the agreed data management policy which takes into account the national security

aspect regarding the data input defined by military authority and data availability. The Contracting States should ensure timely provision of

relevant data. The States should also take the necessary measures to ensure quality, validation and timely transmission of the data

The Contracting States will be required to individually carry out their obligations pursuant to Article 21 of and Annex V to Commission

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 390/2013.

Accountability and responsibility

Since the assigning of responsibility/accountability for the achievement of performance objective is one of the key drivers of the performance

plan, the states should identify of the responsible/accountable stakeholders

Civil-military performance monitoring system

The Contracting States intend to implement PRISMIL, the EUROCONTROL civil-military performance monitoring system. PRISMIL should be

implemented across NEFAB by the end of the second reference period.

117

8 - ANNEXES

The following annexes should be provided as part of the local performance plans. These should be completed with any other documentation

relevant for the targets justifications.

Annex A. Public consultation material

Annex B. Relevant documentation in line with the NSP

Annex C. Reporting Tables

Reporting Table 1 (Total costs) and Table 2 (Unit rate calculation) and “additional information” as per Article 9 of the charging Regulation

(Transparency of costs and of the charging mechanism) for each entity and consolidated at national/charging zone/FAB level from June 2014.

Annex D. ANSPs investment plans

Annex E. Additional material

118

Documents

FAB Performance Plan NEFAB